Go has absolutely no claim to being C's successor. It is useless for all the things it makes sense to use C for. That's why it has attracted virtually no C programmers. Go is python's successor if user influx is anything to judge by.
175 karma · joined February 12, 2014
What are you basing that assumption on? You are 100% certain that there is no possible way that men and women could have different preferences, priorities or interests?
Nor does it hurt. It only provides something for people to point to while they say "look, people are talking about something I am not interested in, therefore haskell is too hard and I shouldn't bother trying".
>And I've watched many, many discussions about Haskell go into deep arguments about category theory
You are not required to participate in any discussions you don't want to participate in.
>I want to write a program
So do it? The whole point of my post is that it is perfectly simple to do so. If a non-programmer can teach herself haskell and be productive with it, there's no reason a programmer can't.
My wife is a web designer. She has no interest in programming. She taught herself PHP and javascript because she needed to use them. When she finally got to the point where she couldn't tolerate PHP's shittiness anymore, she asked me what she should use instead. I said "scala is a good choice, or you could just skip a step and go straight to haskell". She tried both, decided on haskell because she didn't like lift or play, and proceeded to teach herself haskell. She has never read real world haskell, or even learn you a haskell. I just asked her what a monad is: "Beats me, just use do and the arrow things". She's already finished two big websites written in haskell. This idea that you need to be a compsci phd or something to use haskell is simply not reality.
I don't think my experience with erlang has anything to do with the reasons it isn't more popular though. The biggest thing I see is the lack of module/library/package management. CPAN was a big deal. It is now expected that every language have their own CPAN. I think the lack of one is a huge problem for any language, erlang being a good example. I think it is also a big reason that ocaml and haskell went from being "ocaml is the more commonly used one" to "haskell has ten times the userbase of ocaml".
Obviously I can't tell what you meant to say, but it is what you did say. "If your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless". My thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today. You explicitly said I am "doing the wrong thing". I believe that is incorrect.
How can you apply a blanket "premature" to this? The questions are simply "can this be improved?". There's nothing premature about it, it is a quiz.
Really? If you don't randomly flit from fad to fad you are "doing the wrong thing"? What if I made a good choice 15 years ago? Should I have stopped using postgresql simply because I chose it so long ago?
I don't see any evidence to support that claim. It is a different strategy, but I don't see any indication that it is better. Flushing a few billion dollars down the toilet is a different strategy too, but that doesn't make it better.
Because delusional people still didn't learn their lesson from the first bubble.
>Do you have any evidence of this
Their P/E is 112. That's the very definition of overvalued. The price of their stock makes the company worth far more than they earn. If you purchased facebook, it would take you 112 years to break even on that "investment" at their current earning rate.
>At the time of AOL's acquisition of ICQ it had 20 million active users¹
Or 40% of the internet using population of the world.
>WhatsApp has 430 million
Or 16% of the internet using population of the world.
40% is clearly closer to "won" than 16% is.
And yet you can get >50% speedups for super common queries like "select * from foo where id = ?" if you prepare it once and then use execute instead of just running the select every time. Seems like maybe you're making assumptions you shouldn't.
Read your link. They can be cached. You have no way to ensure that they are. And you have no way to have the planning done up front at all, you have to wait until the function is run, and even then every code path in the function has to be exercised to get it planned. And then half the time it doesn't think it should bother to cache the plan anyways. And it is per-session, not shared. So every single connection has to start over with an empty cache every time, and there's tons of duplicate plans in the cache wasting space. Not cool, and by far the biggest thing keeping a ton of "enterprise" customers on SQL server and oracle.
Really? All the patches that were sent upstream and ignored for years wasn't contact?
Even if it were consistently fast and reliable (which it is neither), at $40/month for half a gig of data? Not likely.
Nope. We elect one group of corrupt assholes to run things, and then complain about them being corrupt assholes. We keep re-electing them till they do something so hugely scandalous that we elect the other group of corrupt assholes instead. And then keep re-electing them until they fuck up so badly that we switch back to electing the first group of corrupt assholes again. Our government is currently pushing for more restrictive drug laws, including for weed. They are pushing for mandatory minimum sentences for non violent crimes, and for privatized prisons. These things are almost universally opposed by Canadians. It simply doesn't matter, we re-elect them anyways.