willtim

25 ms·

211.
by willtim 7y ago
Python seems to be the new "beginners" programming language (the "B" in Basic), it's taught in schools now and makes Basic look rather archaic in comparison. So I would say the writing is on the wall. What was good
212.
by willtim 7y ago
There are many good points about KDB/Q the product (most of all simplicity) and it certainly was well-engineered. But K is not a modern language and its performance is only impressive as an interpreted language; and these gains come at
213.
by willtim 7y ago
> Java didn't have generics until version 5 in 2004; the ML family had it in 1990. I thought Standard ML had it in the 70's (!)
214.
by willtim 7y ago
The Kubernetes codebase would probably be a lot less complicated, if Go the language itself were not so simple: https://medium.com/@arschles/go-experience-report-generics-i...
215.
by willtim 7y ago
> Imperative programs can have isolated, pure subsections of functionality which are based on composition and immutability. And functional programming languages can support imperative programming and mutation, even Haskell. It's a q
216.
by willtim 7y ago
50 years ago 99.9% of computer programs were written in completely imperative assembly language programs, such that even arithmetic involved statements and temporary mutable variables. Fortran was a more mathematical higher-level language w
217.
by willtim 7y ago
All the more reason to explicitly model time and not conflate it with the system runtime. As an example, banks have always added entries to a ledger such that the time history of events is explicit and preserved. Functional programming mode
218.
by willtim 7y ago
My 6 year old does the grip first described in the post. Her school teacher has shown much apathy in correcting it and even suggested it was "too late" (UK state school). I'm going to try and help her myself. Tips include sho
219.
by willtim 7y ago
Purity applies to the process of program construction. This is still very valuable, as I can better reason about program correctness.
220.
by willtim 7y ago
Why? Monads [from category theory] were [applied in comp sci] as a way to give imperative programs formal semantics. Making use of them to retain referential transparency in the presence of effects is probably Haskell's greatest succes
221.
by willtim 7y ago
> But solving problems with type systems is not a business goal. Increasing correctness is. I gave an example of increasing correctness in the context of record data types, something almost every business app does. > The same ones tha
222.
by willtim 7y ago
I'm not arguing for languages like Go. I'm saying that Go code will be forever difficult to reason about, no matter what future features they decide to add to it. Using Haskell as another example, it has grown immensely, but never
223.
by willtim 7y ago
It's not what you add to a language that's important, it's what you take away.
224.
by willtim 7y ago
> They add significant complexity to the language and are intended to help with correctness. But are they an effective way to achieve it compared to alternatives? Python programmers say the same about all static type systems. What altern
225.
by willtim 7y ago
> imagine an incredibly-detailed computer simulation of a brain, down to the level of individual cells and neurotransmitters. (While this is beyond our current capabilities, it is in principle possible.) The laws of physics start to beco
226.
by willtim 7y ago
> We do not observe large differences between and in companies based on language choice. Hmm, I think it's pretty clear that most folks are far more productive in Python than say C++. But yes, I agree that there's no silver bul
227.
by willtim 7y ago
> I'd be extremely surprised if you could show that any feature or lack thereof actually costs you money, Bad language design and semantics definitely costs money in the long term. For example, Tony Hoare refers to Null References a
228.
by willtim 7y ago
Indeed and Haskell still has this issue today, because member access is a top-level function.
229.
by willtim 7y ago
Absolutely, using an integer instead of a static sum type hides the problem and actually makes it harder to solve correctly.
230.
by willtim 7y ago
If one doesn't specify a comparator and there is no obvious/sensible default, then an error would be perfectly reasonable.
231.
by willtim 7y ago
Most would expect 10 to parse as an integer. To specify a string, most would be happy with putting quotes around it. So I don't think dynamic types fully explains the bizarre behaviour.
232.
by willtim 7y ago
Wow, who came up with that idea? And people say Haskell is hard to learn...
233.
by willtim 7y ago
Even a foreach loop in e.g. Java or C# bakes in a particular iterator interface into the language. The precedent was set long ago. Languages like Swift and Kotlin are just minor evolutions of these previous OOP languages.
234.
by willtim 7y ago
What a fantastic call to arms! I'm tempted to get involved myself after watching this talk. I couldn't agree more with everything SPJ said.
235.
by willtim 7y ago
Light modes were arguably worse on CRTs, especially if the refresh was 60Hz or less. I couldn't take Word for Windows at all seriously until Windows NT and 85Hz CRTs appeared. I currently use both light and dark themes on Emacs, with a
236.
by willtim 7y ago
As I said elsewhere, it ultimately affects our pension pots. The "someone" you mention are the executives who take risks at the shareholders expense.
237.
by willtim 7y ago
I don't think "no one is being forced to do anything here" is justification for the unprecedented inequality and the existence of billionaires.
238.
by willtim 7y ago
The money doesn't come from thin air. If SoftBank paid it out, the shareholders lose out even more so.
239.
by willtim 7y ago
Better for our pension funds, yes. The stock price of SoftBank has halved in value over this event. I'm expected to fund my old age using stocks.
240.
by willtim 7y ago
Completely agree. I don't know why you are getting downvoted, capitalism in its present form is clearly broken. The payout sum here is ludicrous, it is certainly not justified in terms of value created for society. This money has to co

More ›