wellpast

17 ms·

151.
Telomeres in lab mice may be distorting outcomes in drug trials(researchhub.com)
1 points by wellpast 6y ago|0 comments
152.
by wellpast 6y ago
This reasoning here is severely mistaken. Static typing does not change the complexity dynamics of your programming model. It's a mere tool. If I statically type to DateTime I can still be wildy baffled to see a transaction take place
153.
by wellpast 6y ago
Isn’t there already a long philosophical analysis of this phenomenon — know-how vs know-what?
154.
by wellpast 7y ago
And to answer your question my experience in strongly typed functional FP was building a few applications in Elm, a derivative/cousin of Haskell.
155.
by wellpast 7y ago
I have a similar take on Haskell and I do think its adherents are more clinging to a near-religious like commitment to the language and its counterproductive purity. That said I think > I feel learning Haskell was worthless. is a little
156.
by wellpast 7y ago
> Things don’t always fit exactly. Maybe once enough new ideas are collected, a new category would emerge… except you can’t see its shape because everything’s already been sorted. This is so very true and precisely why PL type systems (i
157.
by wellpast 7y ago
Woah strawman. There's no fetishization going on here, it's a micro-tutorial. It's the opposite of profound - and decidedly so. You're focusing on something called syntax and legibility, not this article -- which is why
158.
by wellpast 7y ago
> But they may still be true. How? If beliefs have no way to be verified, what does it mean to say one still may be true. This statement has as much meaning as randomly uttered noise.
159.
by wellpast 7y ago
> How can you ensure that the things you say are true and novel and important? Believe it or not, there is a trick for doing this ... ... trick is not to say anything unless he's sure it's worth hearing. This makes it hard to g
160.
by wellpast 7y ago
Try mediation and awareness practice. This may take you farther than explicit overt efforts to "fix" yourself. Primarily because part/s of the brain that "logically" identifies your narcissism is likely the same par
161.
by wellpast 7y ago
If you’re choosing to hop the network as a means of decoupling code that’s absurd because you can decouple much more cheaply with PL and build facilities — without introducing a network hop. But there are problems that justify a service. De
162.
by wellpast 7y ago
Technical Debt is a term used by non-professionals as a euphemism for their own incompetence. I say this not to cut people down but with all due desire for us to get better at our work. It's a lot harder for someone to say "I didn
163.
Big Tech Bullies Smaller Firms(businessinsider.com)
3 points by wellpast 7y ago|0 comments
164.
by wellpast 7y ago
This is quite a cryptic piece and reading and retreading I’m quite at a loss for what, if anything, is being said about Fellini or his work. What am I missing or is this vapid? 8 1/2 is an “ugly display”? What does that even mean? It’s
165.
by wellpast 7y ago
Will consumers reward businesses that correct for this? Alamo Drafthouse has always seemed humanity-first to me from movie programming, to community-based events, to viewing experience. Their patrons seem to appreciate it.
166.
by wellpast 7y ago
It is probably true that a majority today favors static types, but I don't think this a subjective issue if the problem is maximizing developer throughput over time . Working on statically typed code bases that model things the way
167.
by wellpast 7y ago
This is great and now these functions are now square in my radar, as well. As far as his example goes, this IS how you model data: (def people [{:name "Elsie" :admin? true :mod? true}
168.
by wellpast 7y ago
> I can impose constraints on my callers so that they can't accidentally call my code wrong, all the better. This is precisely the mentality that impedes productivity in typical business delivery case. If your callers are not thinki
169.
by wellpast 7y ago
Thought experiment, in your mind what would better produce modularity — TDD or static type verification? If you had to pick one.
170.
by wellpast 7y ago
> The Haskell type system is just a set of tools I can use to organize my software and help ensure it's both ergonomic and easy to use. If it were “just a set of tools” then it would be weakly typed. Tools are by their very nature a
171.
by wellpast 7y ago
I don’t disagree with you about maintaining large unwieldy code bases being perhaps better in static type land. Large unwieldy code bases have already ossified anyway so the productivity gain of dynamism is lost and you’re simply swimming i
172.
by wellpast 7y ago
At what point would you stop with formal static verification and why would you stop? At which point would you concede you’ve gone too far, and why? Do you have a criteria? Or are you convinced that as much formal verification as possible is
173.
by wellpast 7y ago
The obvious part is that by the time your code stabilizes (and you have good techniques and process) then most of the faults in the code have been eliminated. At this point you should have an informal or formal proof of correctness with lit
174.
by wellpast 7y ago
I do want to add that no one is off the hook for writing correct, production-stable programs. What I'm saying is that there are other tools and skills that can and must be acquired to deliver quality code at high throughput. Formal p
175.
by wellpast 7y ago
> It seems like this disagreement should be easy to resolve. You are saying that it's hard to satisfy the type checker when porting a dynamically-typed program; OP says this happens very rarely. Therefore you can easily disprove OP&
176.
by wellpast 7y ago
> Other benefits of strong static type systems are compiler-enforced documentation (through types) and ease of refactoring. I do agree if "compiler-enforced" is your target then by definition you'll choose compiler enforce
177.
by wellpast 7y ago
I'm forever baffled by the complete inability of our industry to see time or care about seeing that our most precious resource is time. One thing is true: if you're not proving correctness of your code -- formally or informally --
178.
by wellpast 7y ago
He didn't quit Twitter. He switched to read-only.
179.
by wellpast 7y ago
Started reading this and was disappointed to find the same disingenuous claims about strong static type systems. I say disingenuous because the people that espouse these beliefs seem to have a minimum modicum of intelligence and do or would
180.
by wellpast 7y ago
> The dynamic typing guys complain about it being too stifling, while the static typing guys like me complain about it being too stifling without giving you any of the things you actually want in a type-system. Lose lose. Type system pur

More ›