Agree except for the cooking. Like gardening, its a very rewarding privilege if you don't have to do the other shit
142 karma · joined July 16, 2019
It uses 50x the RAM to do so. But you're dead wrong to think java is slow.
The only reason physics game engines are written in C++ is because physics game engines are written in C++.
Anybody who needs a UUID can surely generate their own with one line in any language they choose.
It's not like tinyurl where non tech users run into a Twitter limit.
it's the theoretical basis for ML and Haskell.
Clojure's nil punning and Java's Null Pointers are an unholy alliance here.
But a type system like Elm solves the problem before it ever gets to JavaScript for example.
As I said, I like Racket. And I agree with you it's a nice environment for playing with new language ideas. But most of those ideas are bad and are just incidental complexity. And the 1 of 100 languages that are great ideas and needed by the world are better off spun out with their own parser and toolchain without being so tied to Dr Racket and Chez Scheme.
A good type system like Haskell's gains you much more than it costs. Sure Json and Clojure are open and flexible, but this is not what you want when you understand your problem and can specify the types are Ohms -> Volts -> Amps etc, instead of just Number Number Number.
Specifying them after in spec or typed racket was just not the same and always rang similiar to unit tests after the fact.
Haskell types is like having a pair programmer sitting beside me. For systems that I have in production that have been ported from Clojure to Purescript the reduction in bugs, refactorability and overall confidence is something I didn't know I was missing until I did.
I understand Hickey's point in his Maybe Not talk, either you have the data or you don't. But at the end of the day, Clojurescript apps subject my users to blank screens and subtle "undefined is not a function" bugs, whereas the Purescript compiler forces ME to diligently deal with those unexpected possible scenarios before I ever ship.
Halfway though I realized I was inventing a shittier Purescript.
Dsls are mostly masturbation. Custom syntax? Custom evaluation semantics? I always regret it after like cocaine.
The only thing macros are reasonable for is custom bindings.
Most people are not qualified to invent dsls. Myself included. And the people who are qualified don't need "language oriented programming" ala racket. They can spin up a lexer which is the least complicated part of the task anyway.
As for types, they have a HUGE power to weight ratio. All of my efficiency gains in Clojure due to macros were forfeited 10x over hunting down null pointer exceptions at runtime.
I still love Racket. And I still prototype in Clojure. But Haskell brings you closer to math. Closer to category theory.
Most programmers don't need new symbols and semantics. They need a deeper understanding of combinatorial logic.
I thought racket was the holy grail due to the macro system but my real metamorphosis came after learning Haskell. I realize now that my previous preference for Clojure was because I was stuck in prototyping mode.
Once you truly understand your problem domain then types trump macros.
So while I owe a huge debt to Clojure/Racket for rescuing me from my java nightmare, and introducing me to other approaches like Erlang, it was Haskell/Purescript that matured me the most as a programmer.
It was so worth the (considerable) effort, because it has generalized the very nature of computation in a way that just never happened for me in all my years with lisp.
ie
theuniverseis99%emptyspaceatleastthatswhatiwastaughtbymr.cattoningrade6
easy to remember without paper and uncrackable. Pair it with a yubikey and that's your bitwarden master
I remember when the Killers song Somebody Told Me was all over the radio. I HATED that f'ing song. But I came to love the killers as a side note. When I found out later that was their song I couldnt help liking it more and myself less.
Magnesium is required for serotonin production. And modern farming practices virtually eliminate it from our diet.
It's not perfect as conversations evolve away from the articles. But it would be useful I think.