teacup50

81 ms·

691.
by teacup50 13y ago
I can't tell if "leading lights" is meant earnestly here, but I personally choose to believe she's anything but: "Lol men are all like WHY DO WOMEN NEED SPECIAL PLACES TO HACK. well, maybe it's because men are
692.
by teacup50 13y ago
That's really, really funny. Engineering isn't math either, but you can't do it right without math.
693.
by teacup50 13y ago
I don't see how it follows that iteration reduces the degree to which one must understand a system. That's just a rephrasing of the attractive but ultimately empty "dynamic typing is just more creative." Bridges (or car
694.
by teacup50 13y ago
Yes, there is software that is designed with the goal of never wasting the user's time or goodwill with buggy or ill conceived UX or implementation. As for "doing fine at it", that they exist doesn't prove that, or even
695.
by teacup50 13y ago
It's chauvinistic to believe that the only way to assess math is through deductive reasoning? By that measure, all "STEM" fields are inherently "chauvinistic".
696.
by teacup50 13y ago
Static typing gives me the liberty to explicitly define much more complex ideas in ways that leverage the compiler to create powerful and beneficial systems that would otherwise be untenable in a language in which one could not leverage the
697.
by teacup50 13y ago
On the other hand, because PNaCL is a sane IR, its composeability and implementability vastly exceeds that of asm.js, which requires not only a full JavaScript stack, but additionally, a complex JavaScript JIT system capable of executing it
698.
by teacup50 13y ago
> You are making an opinion as to the definition of complex software. "Complex software" means different things to different people. "Complex" math or "complex" engineering means different things to differ
699.
by teacup50 13y ago
That it's better to accurately and reliably modeling complex systems and invariants through provable assertions is objectively is no more an empty statement than to say that it's better to apply informed materials and structural e
700.
by teacup50 13y ago
It's not possible for anyone to build complex software in a unityped language while having a full, complete, and verifiable understanding of their own system invariants at any given moment. Claims otherwise are the literal equivalent
701.
by teacup50 13y ago
No, they're financially liable for financially impacting bugs. Broken web UI annoys your customers, but is unlikely to bankrupt you.
702.
by teacup50 13y ago
There's nothing chauvinistic about it. If you want to hear people honestly and accurately describe "static" type system's flaws -- talk to type system theorists. Type systems can be provably flawed. What you can
703.
by teacup50 13y ago
Whereas you appear to be simply dense given your inability to see the hilarious hypocrisy of surrendering the privacy of yourself and others to SaaS vendor policies while calling them to task for giving you the equivalent privilege of polic
704.
by teacup50 13y ago
> Where are the killer apps that were developed through a niche JS transpiler? If you want to build a web app in Haskell instead of the web's true lingua franca, all you're accomplishing is making it harder to hire and harder
705.
by teacup50 13y ago
> People have different styles and preferences. In terms of Haskell, it's not a question of style or preference , but provable correctness of the underlying theory. I don't think programmers should have to be category th
706.
by teacup50 13y ago
> Again, I wouldn't say it "sucks" for this reason, just that it's dynamically typed. That's a tradeoff. This is the Haskell wiki. I would expect most participants to view having a single global implicit unio
707.
by teacup50 13y ago
"basically" agrees? As for "Cloud providers are likely to resist", I dare say what's more likely to resist is controlling your own data and simply not having it stored anywhere in the first place.
708.
by teacup50 13y ago
Your equating of tattoos, "heavy drug use", and "bad habits" is ridiculously judgmental, naive, and has almost nothing to do with the article.
709.
by teacup50 13y ago
No, the safest change to make is one that has been reviewed and tested thoroughly and found to be correct. Plenty of harm can be found in even small changes; the reality is that continuous deployment only works for companies that can afford
710.
by teacup50 13y ago
We spend the better part of two decades focused on the JVM, and then another decade on CLR. Give it time.
711.
by teacup50 13y ago
All the research I've done says you're wrong: http://www.informationintersection.com/2014/04/discovering-c... It's more expensive and more complicated, but it's not crazy . To quote the articl
712.
by teacup50 13y ago
You're proving the point, here. The "enlightenment" IS that you can achieve type safety and "business value in a shorter amount of time" WITHOUT the overweight JIT'd runtimes.
713.
by teacup50 13y ago
So set a policy that you won't read their messages. There's nothing new here. It's nothing but a policy that prevents your SaaS provider from reading your data in the first place.
714.
by teacup50 13y ago
So you're OK with SaaS being protected by policy, but not the behavior of your own company's executive staff and delegated administrators? Hardly seems irrelevant to me, and the free pass you give to SaaS is nonsensical and hypocr
715.
by teacup50 13y ago
> Now, they could make some crazy play to extend discovery to Google or Atlassian ... Discovery is often used as a tool of attrition, to wear down the guy with the smaller wallet Not that crazy. If the data exists, the fact that it&#x2
716.
by teacup50 13y ago
No, I'm looking at it from the perspective of simple rationality: SaaS does not mystically change the technical and legal nature of administrative access to communications over company controlled infrastructure. As for criticizing moti
717.
by teacup50 13y ago
You're being disingenuous; it's the status quo because having the ability to monitor user communications is the default and inherent legal and technical nature of conveying communications over company owned infrastructure. If yo
718.
by teacup50 13y ago
Actually, it does follow from the fact they pay for it. If it weren't for explicit rights carved out by privacy laws, they could put cameras in the bathrooms they own.
719.
by teacup50 13y ago
If you care about personal privacy, don't use your employer's servers, and don't host your private conversations on a third-party SaaS.
720.
by teacup50 13y ago
Given how much you rely on SaaS, how do you even know the data is actually gone? Come discovery, I'd expect you'd find its a lot more permanent and exposed than you expect. Worrying about privacy while using SaaS seems to be missi

More ›