SamReidHughes_

What he should and shouldn't do is for him and his employer to decide, not you.

C++ requires that all overloaded versions exist at compile time; Haskell allows them to exist at runtime. For example, in Haskell you can make a datatype like

    data Foo a = Blah a | Bar (Foo [a])

and you'll have no trouble making a function "showFoo :: Show a => Foo a -> String" using straightforward programming. If you try to do that in C++ you'll get infinite template recursion.

Also, C++ templates don't restrict you to match the right type signatures, the way Haskell typeclasses do.

But other than that, they are pretty much the same kind of thing and are used in the same way.

No, both of those are bad monkey-patching.

There is no reason for that function to be defined as a method in Array.

Yes, but then he wouldn't be a "good student."

You're actually taking the quote out of context. Getting a C in an art class is different from getting a C in macroeconomics. "Everything" doesn't refer to, say, athletic ability, I'm sure. There's some limitation to the set of abilities involved, centered around mental abilities, and art skills might be outside that limit, in the quotee's mind.

I mean, it's really easy to imagine a "good student" branching out, taking an art class, and getting a C, but it's hard to imagine a "good student" branching out, trying macroeconomics, and struggling.

There is no correlation with 'powerful' and it's only natural that elegant languages are easier to implement.

Which version of C# are you thinking of?

In C# 3, the verbosity level is much less than in C# 2, where it's slightly less than C# 1.

I don't see where Ruby syntax is particularly more concise than C# 3's.

Well, let me clarify "particularly". I don't find myself feeling like I'm suffering under C#'s syntax, relative to Haskell's. It has about the same amount of syntactic overhead: writing types for method parameters, and when defining data structures. Occasionally I have to explicitly write a type parameter to a function.

Flagging might need 51, but downvoting needs more. I don't know how much.

> Requiring a degree in CS, SE, or EE (I don't see the point of requiring a degree if it's not directly related to the field) does exactly this.

But it doesn't. There are plenty of people with CS or SE degrees that lack a minimal level of understanding. Even with a terribly lenient definition of minimal.

I'm talking about people who get through 4 years of a decent CS program and would vehemently insist that "array" is an exact synonym for "linked list".

I'd say that the benefit of a CS degree is weaker -- just that it brings forced exposure to important topics, so if you have two people who are smart, the one with a CS degree is going to be more well-rounded. The thing is, you usually don't get to decide between two smart people when hiring. And the CS degrees that are around don't seem to reduce the risk of bugmaking.

You're misinterpreting reality with that quote, because labor that produces inherently more valuable goods is inherently more valuable labor than labor which does not. Part of the wealth that goes into the peanuts and book is the extremely valuable labor of finding out who needs what resources.

Probably to simplify the add/remove code and life in general.