runald

12 ms·

91.
by runald 6y ago
>No, you're conflating higher-order functions with closures Well, if you are actually doing the real hardcore FP™, and not just the lame pretentious PF, then yes higher-order functions will indeed very much make heavy use of closure
92.
by runald 6y ago
Huh? I don't know if you are aware of this, but higher-order functions make heavy use of closures. I don't think there is even a purpose to higher-order functions without closures. I don't how haskell is implemented internall
93.
by runald 6y ago
For something that argues against bad abstractions, the article sure is lacking in concrete examples and makes a point in abstract. A lot of people will likely misinterpret or get the idea that abstraction is only done for duplicated code (
94.
by runald 6y ago
https://music-grid.surge.sh/#2665-3396-2337-1108-2336-1041-2... Makes a nice background noise I guess
95.
by runald 6y ago
Meh, prefix + converts a string into an integer, so it'd be something like toInteger('9') + 1. I agree prefix + is weird, but nothing mind-blowing.
96.
by runald 6y ago
Javascript is plenty concise and expressive. Can you give an example where Go is less verbose compared to javascript? Edit: C# is actually quite expressive too, I have a hard time believing Go is less verbose than C#.
97.
by runald 6y ago
How is printed clojure code from regular clojure code? Sounds like a maintenance nightmare if the code can't be understood just by reading it.
98.
by runald 7y ago
What if you need to type something like blackjack?
99.
by runald 7y ago
I think you are conflating two unrelated things just by assigning the same percentages. Stating that coding is 95-99% easy doesn't necessarily means that it only accounts for 5% of the work. Yes, I perfectly understand the words you ha
100.
by runald 7y ago
That's 95% of the work? Suppose, we do really have two those things established, say copying an existing system or feature, do you honestly believe that there's not much else to do, because the people-in-charge did all the thinkin
101.
by runald 8y ago
I must have missed some steps, but why did you assign p = 0.01, and how did you arrive that a) get to be (1-p) * (1-p)? And why can't, say, a) be p * p?
102.
by runald 8y ago
Well, you could always try creating your own HN frontend[1] I made one myself for about an hour or two. http://morphical.ml:4000/s/17111778 [1] https://github.com/HackerNews/API
103.
by runald 8y ago
> I'm not particularly sensitive to it Aren't you? Poor may not be a well-thought out word to describe it, but I'm sure there are way more offensive words out there like, I don't know, maybe stupid or idiotic? I inter
104.
by runald 9y ago
Rather than asserting that the laws of stupidity are an inherent characteristic of people, I think it would be more useful or productive to apply the laws to human actions instead. So the third law would be something like: A stupid action i
105.
by runald 9y ago
You forgot to include [1], I think.
106.
by runald 9y ago
I've seen this too many times... TDD != Automated testing