jaked89

Check out the Eterna game.

This is not unique to Uber, ordinary taxis do it all the time, globally. If anything, Uber should be more equipped (in theory) to deal with it, as it has an open review system.

"It’s like how MailChimp has become synonymous with sending email newsletters. If you want to work with data you use RDBMS and SQL. In fact, there usually needs to be a good reason not to use them. Just like there needs to be a good reason not to use MailChimp for sending emails, or Stripe for taking card payments."

Wow, that's a subtle, almost unnoticeable promotion of MailChinp. /s

You can also create a slideshow from it:

https://github.com/YaakovDavis/TreeSlides

Rest assured, not all new languages take this route.

On the other side of the spectrum, type systems get stronger and more powerful. Read about dependent typing in Idris, F*. Also, nearly all academic work focuses on improved type systems.

And people are also entitled to criticize the criticizers.

How is that for an outrage over an outrage? :)

So? They have changed their business model. They're entitled to do so.

If you care so much about the poor, you might as well subsidize a MOOC for them, instead of demanding Coursera to do so.

Coursera is willing to have the same amount of money you're willing to keep. How are they greedier than you?

Expecting a service without giving anything in return is the definition of "greedy".

It's not a proof that your work is correct. It's a proof that a few cases, out of potentially millions, or billions, work.

The public education system is for-profit as well, only difference is that they make their profit by collecting funds coercively, instead of advertising their service and getting paid voluntarily.

The hatred towards for-profit companies is childish. Why would you expect anyone to build games for you for free?

Boring. I almost fell asleep.

"C# ... does a lot to railroad a programmer into a strongly OOP style that I am opposed to".

C# has functional capabilities as well. People write in it nowadays in a whole lot of different styles, including procedural, OO, functional, reactive.

Yes, the average developer uses it in an OO style, but it can do a lot more.

Every JS code is a valid TS, since TS is a superset of JS.

You can benefit immoderately from compiling your existing codebase in TS; you'll probably discover some bugs, even before adding any annotations.

What about inequality operators (>, >=, <, <=)?

What about complex predicates (and, or)?

The language seems rather limited.

This code exists in a folder named "old/to_be_ported", which might indicate that it no longer functions.

It appears that the correct way is to create a .fsi file.

A few examples: https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/blob/4e4162f736195b2031ba...

https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/blob/4e4162f736195b2031ba...

https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/blob/4e4162f736195b2031ba...

https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/blob/4e4162f736195b2031ba...

https://github.com/FStarLang/FStar/blob/4e4162f736195b2031ba...

In big codebases, warnings are useless. No one reads them.

They usually contain thousands of items from different plugins, designers, etc. Sorting through them all is impractical.

Errors are not just about protecting a developer from himself, but more importantly, protecting developers in a team from one another.

If the compiler can't produce an error, the whole feature is pointless.

Templating is one of the strongest features of D IMO, and the only reason I would ever consider using it over C#.

No decent IDE/debugging story though, so overall C# still wins for me at the moment. Especially for large projects.

C# doesn't "execute on a VM layer". It's compiled to native code before execution, in a process known as JIT.

http://www.telerik.com/blogs/understanding-net-just-in-time-...

I find the binding part and MVVM stuff rubbish.

For me, the real value is composition flexibility.

It's worth mentioning Elm, a (truly) functional-reactive language, based on virtual-DOM.

http://elm-lang.org/

"One obvious use of types in physics that we have not explored in this work is the expression of physical dimensions (length, mass, time) and units (meter, kilogram, second).

...This is not trivial to do with Haskell’s type system because one wants multiplication to “multiply the units” as well as the numbers."

F# supports units: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd233243.aspx

"Non-standard" doesn't necessarily mean "shiny". Often you need to compose elements in a way that makes a certain UI feature possible, or convenient. Such compositions aren't inherently shiny; they can even be ugly. But functional.

In WF it's very hard & tedious.

Velocity? Only for simple, boring UI.

Any non-standard control requires GDI+ rendering, which is not very maintainable. WPF offers a far superior composition ability.

The images won't load.

Even with delegates, C#'s version is pretty much equivalent to JS's:

JavaScript:

  var blah = function(){ return "im a function"};

C# 3.0:

  var blah = delegate { return "im a function"; };

C# 2.0:

  Func<string> blah = delegate { return "im a function"; };

What ever you were designing, it's almost certain that a more expensive, and mission critical system than yours was already built with C#. Objecting to a major language as C# because it's "closed-source" seems irrational to me.

Why does it matter if it's open or closed-source? It's not like you can realistically invest time to dig in the source code and modify it, in the rare case that you found a problem. C# had huge amounts of money invested on it, probably more than your entire project you were planning.

"Free" and "neutral" can't co-exist. "Free" means that the government controls it. This by itself implies that it's not neutral.

Q.E.D.