asdasf

My experience is the exact opposite. Only absolutely beginner php/mysql guys do that. And they do so because they don't understand joins. You can't even do outer joins implicitly without vendor specific extensions (which are being deprecated), so the idea that it is better when mixing join types is particularly odd. It is also far from "the standard" in the oracle world. Oracle land has more people who think using weird oraclisms are good, but there's still an awful lot of people who prefer ANSI syntax there. Just look at the answers to questions about it on any forum.

That is a lovely hypothesis, but I believe testing it would falsify it.

>Personally, I see Haskell as the C++ of functional language

You should try it some day, it is absolutely nothing like your misconceptions.

Which is more complicated and less expressive than haskell? That seems like a pretty bizarre choice.

Your first paragraph seems to be entirely nonsense. Almost everyone was first introduced to a high level language. This did not prevent anyone from understanding that those languages are themselves software, written by people. In fact, you generally have to take a whole course on compilers.

Haskell is a far cry from just lazy ML. Oddly enough, your summary of go would be far more appropriate for haskell, which makes go's concurrency handling look primitive.

>I really like web development

Odds are you would find it every bit as soul crushing as tech support if you did get a job doing it. Web development still carries the stigma of "I know how everything should be, you just do the grunt work of actually writing the code for me". You constantly deal with bullshit, people insisting on making the site suck ass because they "have an eye for design" or making things convoluted and hard to use because "I know people" so who cares about all those usability studies. And then when the shitty site is a failure, they pretend it was your fault and that all of the stupid shit they demanded was your idea. Web development is enjoyable when you are doing it for yourself, rarely is it tolerable when doing it for someone else. If you want to aspire to something better, pick a trade. Web development isn't a step up from tech support, it is just a step sideways.

What you describe doesn't need an index on the foreign key, that's the point I was making.

Postgresql advice from a mysql user. Foreign keys don't need indexes on the from side, and they should be pointing to a primary key on the to side so that is already covered. In mysql you likely want an index on the from side because you are probably joining on it and mysql only knows how to do nested loop joins. But postgresql is a real database, so we have hash joins and merge joins, which don't need indexes on the join conditions, rather on the where clause (like you would want anyways). http://use-the-index-luke.com/sql/join/hash-join-partial-obj...

>Gilad provides a humble deconstruction of common myths and claims of the FP culture

He argued with a joke from a comic and lost. Even he would laugh in your face at the notion that there was anything humble about his talk.

>He is skeptical and I didn't find any of his conclusions to be dismissive

That is precisely the opposite of reality. He doesn't even understand functional programming, he is thus not skeptical, he is dismissive.

>He was there to break through the hype and I think he was successful.

The fact that both he and you believe there is "hype" is indicative of the problem. "Hey, you should learn things and improve your skills" is not hype.

Most of what he says is outright wrong. He talks about smalltalk inventing all of this FP stuff that was in ML before smalltalk-76 "invented" them. He pretends smalltalk predates FP, except again, ML predates smalltalk-76. and smalltalk-72 didn't have the stuff he is talking about. He talks about things "FP languages can't do", but that I do all the time in haskell with no issues. He repeats the oldest most worn out fallacious arguments that have been debunked over and over, and pretends that since nobody is allowed to interrupt the talk to correct him, his arguments are correct. Everything about his talk is an example of the exact opposite of what you suggest it is. If you want someone to convincingly lie to you about how FP isn't all that, look to Erik Meijer. Gilad sucks at it.

>manipulative propaganda film from the anti-meat lobby

You seem to have a real emotional problem with the idea of vegans existing. Why does that cause you so much distress that you make up bizarre nonsense like a "anti-meat lobby"?

>Why don't more people post videos and articles about the mistreatment of migrant farm workers in America?

Lots of people do? Why do you imply that people caring about animals and people caring about people are mutually exclusive?

>My ex was a vegan. She always complained about the mistreatment of animals used for food but never thought twice about how the people were treated who picked all the vegetables she ate.

Do you think twice about how the people were treated who killed all those animals you ate? The meat industry is much worse than what migrant farm workers face. That is why they have to import immigrants from south america to be slaves in the meat industry.

I am fully aware of what the typeclass defines. It is an inappropriate name. I don't think there is anyone who likes those names. Everyone uses <> instead of mappened. Append is inappropriate because you do not append lots of monoids, like Product and Sum for example.

>Ok... I think I'm getting trolled at this point.

If you don't want to discuss something, then don't post. You are not making any sense, and calling people trolls does not help at all.

>In almost any other language, were such a thing to exist, monoids would not be called monoids but by some descriptive term which conveyed an intuitive sense of their meaning and use

There is no such term, that is the point. Offering up misleading terms that do not convey a sense of their meaning is much worse than a word that is unfamiliar.

>My point isn't really specifically about monoids; they're just an example of what often goes on in Haskell, which is that people put theory before practicality and mathematical (and hence often esoteric) definitions before practical, real-world definitions.

But it isn't an example of that. It is quite bizarre to see people insist that this goes on, and give examples that do not support that claim, while being fully convinced in their proof.

>As it turns out, I'm not one of those people; I love the mathematical side of Haskell and I love that I've learned what a Monoid is and developed an interest in type theory, category theory and all kinds of other things. But not everyone is like that, and that's the point I'm making.

You don't need to be like that, that is the point we're making. I am not a math person. I am not a CS person. I am a high school drop out who taught himself to code in PHP and C. I learned haskell just fine. I learned monoids and functors and monads just fine. I am no more mathematically inclined now than I was before. I know nothing of category theory, and care nothing of it. They are very general abstractions that do not reflect a narrow, specific use case, and thus do not benefit from a word that describes some narrow, specific use case.

>This progression seems somewhat interesting to me. As does the desire to not have to simulate code in your head.

But none of that has anything to do with monads.

You are using the exact reasoning I was talking about. Monoids are monoids. That is what they are. 99% of programmers are not familiar with them. If you call it "addable" or "joinable" or "appendable" then you are just making people think that one subset of some monoids is the definition of monoids when it isn't. They still don't know what monoids are, now they just also don't know what they are called. You are literally giving it an incorrect and misleading name. All that does is confuse people. You have to learn what monoids actually are even if you call them "addable"s. Rather than learning a misleading name for them, it is quite simple to learn a new term like "monoid". Considering there is really only 3 that people need to learn (monoid, functor, monad) this is not an overwhelming burden.

I don't understand your first statement. You currently lose custody of your children by default, that's the problem. Attempts have been made to change the law in some states to fix that, but were defeated by NOW and their supporters. Currently, the law considers the best interests of the child to be "with the mother". It should consider the best interests of the child to be "with both parents".

A review of the cases does not support your claim. 8% of fathers demand custody because 8% of fathers feel the mother is so bad that the children are better off with the father. The fact that they generally win in such cases is expected, but can not be generalized to imply that if fathers simply seek custody more often, they will still get it that often. When they seek custody in cases where the mother is not abusive, they lose.

No it doesn't. It is a common term for tables that are just foreign keys to other tables, generally for expressing many to many relationships.

CLOS and scala have very little in common, both in the functional side and the OO side. Ocaml and F# are better examples. Can I ask what you think made this a brilliant talk? It seemed like the standard "I don't want to have to learn so I will pretend there's no reason to learn" nonsense we hear all the time.

>The points he makes against obtuse names based in category theory are valid

No, they aren't. When you have a class of "things" that doesn't have a name most people are familiar with, you are left with two options. Either choose a name people are familiar with, but which is wrong and misleading. Or choose the correct name and people have to learn a name. Are we seriously so pathetic as an industry that learning 3 new technical terms is a problem?

Protip: when you are arguing with someone who is "on your side" as if they are your opponent, you might just be an overzealous douche who wants to argue too much.

I'm not. I am blaming you for presenting a statistic in a misleading way. You are suggesting that courts are fair because fathers get custody when they seek it. But you are leaving out the part where they only seek it in cases of abuse. Fair would be default joint custody, which feminist organizations like NOW actively campaign against.

You go right ahead and keep on pretending you make $200k/year then, I'm sure if you pretend hard enough it will suddenly become relevant.

Nothing you said addresses my point. Notice how only 8% of fathers are seeking custody? Why is that? Using statistics to deliberately mislead people is dishonest.

Did you notice how that study didn't control for anything? Like say, the reasons that fathers were seeking sole custody? Fathers virtually only seek sole custody when the mother is abusive or grossly negligent. In cases where the mother is not abusive or negligent, fathers almost always accept minimal joint custody as they feel it is what is best for the children. The fact that people throw this around as some sick attempt to portray fathers are not caring about their children and the courts being totally fair is disgusting.

Construction jobs are highly paid.

You're joking right? Is this sarcasm? I dunno who you think this "we" is, but 99% of software people are not part of it. Hell, you even contradict your own fantasy tale, how are you getting fed 3 meals a day if you are only working 8 hour days?

My friends in other industries work 40 hour weeks and make just as much as I do. Hell, I know a plumber and an electrician who both make more than I do, and they both work less than 40 hours a week. I am being pressured into working evenings, weekends and all through christmas to meet an arbitrary deadline while they keep adding more features to be finished by that deadline. Step outside of your little bubble and look around at the rest of the world, it isn't your fantasy.

PMI in 1984 was exactly what it says in the name, project management. It didn't become a programming methodology thing until the agile craze. Six sigma was big in the industrial world, not programming.

But the very core of XP was that it did have to be followed exactly. That there was 12 specific things you had to do. All of those things were existing things, that people already did. It was precisely the "doing all 12 of them exactly as we say" that was XP. And it was total BS.