yfyf

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by yfyf 14y ago

   Sure, theoretical investigations on things begin many years earlier than anyone starts actually using them, but somehow "concurrency" wasn't something available to your everyday Joe back in 60s, right? Multi-core wasn't the norm, there was
2. 2.▲
   by yfyf 14y ago

   I wonder if he would claim the same argument today as he does in this[1] comment, in particular the paragraph "On side effects being bad <..>". I would dare to claim that there's some trend to do things more side-effectlessly not on
3. 3.▲
   by yfyf 14y ago

   Yes, I am only claiming that it results in shorter code for the code which deals with problems in that specific domain. In general -- obviously not! But the overall gain is still significant. I don't care if e.g. some library dealing with s
4. 4.▲
   by yfyf 14y ago

   > erlang is great for anything that requires a lot of moving pieces and doesn't require the code to actually look nice or be readable" Sorry, but this is such a BS claim. Yes, there are bits of Erlang syntax which are ugly. Yes, you ca
5. 5.▲
   by yfyf 15y ago

   Someone needs to make a poster for this, I'd put it up in our department.
6. 6.▲
   by yfyf 15y ago

   Now someone please explain Skolem's paradox to a 12 year old.
7. 7.▲
   by yfyf 15y ago

   I'm sorry, but his photography is terrible. Cliche, boring and not even that well produced in the technical sense.