youerbt

13 ms·

1. 91.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   Then your database API should use "safe strings" only, simple as that.
2. 92.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   And that's OOP I can subscribe to. But is it OOP that is encouraged or made easy by standard OOP languages? Sounds more like Erlang to me.
3. 93.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   Well, I'm just pointing out that "easy" is not something that can be attributed to a programming language based on cute, pseudo-code like samples online. You don't see "Python is easy" examples with full test s
4. 94.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   I think "easy" is the biggest bait in the industry. Python is a language where, by default, a typo is a potential runtime error. That's far from easy in my book.
5. 95.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   But it I throw mature Python/C++ code at you, with concepts you don't know, how is it easier? Those Haskell threads are full of exaggerations. I don't know/use a lot of Haskell concepts and I can still produce software w
6. 96.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   Yea... that's a trade off, unfortunately, and I won't pick sides here. Stronger static typing has so much potential for tooling, but none of that is reality, sadly. As for Haskell, I think, it's a combination of manpower (so
7. 97.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   Yes, Haskell is worse with those "trivial automated" (due to worse tooling, nothing about the language prevents that), but imo better with those "hunting down compiler errors". And I take easier manual work on hard probl
8. 98.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   I guess I took the bait when you "included" dynamic languages, so your little conversation is misleading at best. On topic: Oh, these are great and I wish Haskell had more of that. But these are "dumb" actions, really. H
9. 99.▲
   by youerbt 7y ago

   Change one thing and manually fix compiler errors it's what I'm talking about. Point me to something like that, for, lets say, Python. For example to error when I misuse return value of a function. Or when I decide that this strin
10. 100.▲
    by youerbt 7y ago

    Java is also advertised as "enterprise" language and it can't even encode in its type system that a piece of data can be missing. Or maybe it can, with Optional<T>, thanks Haskell. I can't tell I had less problems
11. 101.▲
    by youerbt 7y ago

    To most (if not all) production ready languages out there.
12. 102.▲
    by youerbt 7y ago

    > This is fundamentally why it's useless in practice. It requires you to anticipate/predict everything ahead of implementation. This is simply bs. Haskell is actually a language (that I know of) where, IMO, your initial choices