Walter Bright:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
I have found one of the several voices that reminds us of the
advantages of dynamic typing:
http://www.srl.inf.ethz.ch/workshop2013/eth-vitek.pdf
(I was away for few days.)
Bye,
bearophile
On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 08:59:59 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
I have found one of the several voices that reminds us of the
advantages of dynamic typing:
On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 13:06:43 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh
wrote:
On Monday, 28 October 2013 at 08:59:59 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
I have found one of the several voices that reminds us of the
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 02:08:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:00:04 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:07:20PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
In contrast, with a dynamically typed language, the type of a
variable can
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 10:23:34 UTC, Chris wrote:
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 02:08:59 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:00:04 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:07:20PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
In contrast, with a
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:44:59 +0200
Chris wend...@tcd.ie wrote:
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 10:23:34 UTC, Chris wrote:
from bottleneck import runslow
I like bottlenecks in Blues, not in programs.
Heh. They're very satisfying to play. Such a rich bass. Also fun to
annoy people with :)
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 12:22:16 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 12:44:59 +0200
Chris wend...@tcd.ie wrote:
On Friday, 18 October 2013 at 10:23:34 UTC, Chris wrote:
from bottleneck import runslow
I like bottlenecks in Blues, not in programs.
Heh. They're very
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:07:20PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 04:49:29 growler wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 02:37:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:16:17PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis
[...]
I can't possibly like any language where
On 2013-10-16 22:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Even *with* developer tools, where would you even start? I mean, the
blank page could have resulted from any one point of about 5kloc worth
of JS initialization code (which BTW dynamically loads in a whole bunch
of other JS code, each of which need to run
On 2013-10-16 23:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Compiling it shouldn't be a problem:
http://xkcd.com/224/
So, it's written in Perl. That's why we haven't figured out how the
universe works:
You shoot yourself in the foot, but nobody can understand how you did
it. Six months later, neither can
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 07:42:22 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-10-16 23:08, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
Compiling it shouldn't be a problem:
http://xkcd.com/224/
So, it's written in Perl. That's why we haven't figured out how
the universe works:
You shoot yourself in the foot, but
On 2013-10-17 11:15, Meta wrote:
So what's the D equivalent?
You're only allowed to shoot yourself in the foot if you use system.
From the comments:
D
You shoot yourself in the foot in two linse using a builtin Gun and
Bullet[].
The experience is so enjoyable you shoot yourself again….
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 09:49:37 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
From the comments:
I had to laugh at this one:
.Net
Microsoft hands you a gun and swears blind it’s a toenail clipper
Someone throws a fucking chair at you.
+1
What can I say? For the web I have to use JavaScript, PHP and
Python. Imagine the amount of stupid-yet-hard-to-find bugs I've
had to deal with. Bugs that you only become aware of at runtime.
Am much happier with D (or Java, Objective-C). As for the
arguments concerning compile time,
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 07:43:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-10-16 22:55, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Even *with* developer tools, where would you even start? I
mean, the
blank page could have resulted from any one point of about
5kloc worth
of JS initialization code (which BTW
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 13:54:34 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:
No debugger there to talk to the corresponding native browser
widgets. :( :(
Hm, some mobile browsers (e.g. Chrome on Android) come with
pretty tight remote debugging integration, maybe something like
that is available for
On 2013-10-17 15:54, PauloPinto wrote:
Unless you are developing a f hybrid application targeting to mobiles.
No debugger there to talk to the corresponding native browser widgets.
:( :(
You missed my other post about Firebug Lite:
Am 17.10.2013 16:26, schrieb David Nadlinger:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 13:54:34 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:
No debugger there to talk to the corresponding native browser widgets.
:( :(
Hm, some mobile browsers (e.g. Chrome on Android) come with pretty tight
remote debugging integration,
Am 17.10.2013 17:03, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
On 2013-10-17 15:54, PauloPinto wrote:
Unless you are developing a f hybrid application targeting to
mobiles.
No debugger there to talk to the corresponding native browser widgets.
:( :(
You missed my other post about Firebug Lite:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:26:41 +0200
Chris wend...@tcd.ie wrote:
+1
What can I say? For the web I have to use JavaScript, PHP and
Python. Imagine the amount of stupid-yet-hard-to-find bugs I've
had to deal with. Bugs that you only become aware of at runtime.
I've gotten to the point
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 23:00:04 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 11:07:20PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
In contrast, with a dynamically typed language, the type of a
variable can actually change while your program is running,
resulting in function
On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 22:31:06 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
Am 16.10.2013 00:15, schrieb Walter Bright:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
Agree.
While I do like dynamic languages for prototyping and small
applications, I came to the
On 2013-10-16 02:45, Adam Wilson wrote:
+1
This is why I claw my eyes out every time I have to work with JavaScript.
This is why I find statically typed languages to so much more powerful
for the work I do
One big difference between Ruby and JavaScript is that when something
fails in Ruby
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at compile-time, makes
code self-documenting and doesn't let me worry about performance.
...
Why just obvious bugs?
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
compile-time, makes
code self-documenting and doesn't let me worry about
performance.
...
Why just obvious bugs?
Hehe. Sure -
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:52:47 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
compile-time, makes
code self-documenting and doesn't let me worry
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:52:47 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
compile-time, makes
code self-documenting and doesn't let me worry
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:58:04 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:52:47 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 11:05:25 UTC, PauloPinto wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:52:47 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 10:37:28 UTC, Timon Gehr
wrote:
On 10/16/2013 08:46 AM, simendsjo wrote:
No.. Give me a language that catches obvious bugs at
PauloPinto:
The problem, which I know well from other languages with
annotations, is that eventually you reach annotation hell,
specially in the enterprise world.
There are research papers that explore the algebra of effects,
and also contain better syntax and some better inference. With
On 2013-10-16 12:52, simendsjo wrote:
If @mutable and @impure existed, I could just add some annotations at
the top of each module, but it wouldn't help on parameters.
We need a general way to turn off attributes. This !@attribute has
been proposed before.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 11:36:30 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-10-16 12:52, simendsjo wrote:
If @mutable and @impure existed, I could just add some
annotations at
the top of each module, but it wouldn't help on parameters.
We need a general way to turn off attributes. This
There are research papers that explore the algebra of effects,
and also contain better syntax and some better inference. With
such ideas the control of those effects seems to improve.
An example, from the Koka language:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/koka/2012-overviewkoka.pdf
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 11:47:44 UTC, simendsjo wrote:
How would that relate to non-binary attributes like @system,
@trusted, @safe?
Seems like it would only work on binary built-in attributes.
Still helpful.
Problem with current built-in attribute design is that any
attribute is
On 2013-10-16 13:47, simendsjo wrote:
How would that relate to non-binary attributes like @system, @trusted,
@safe?
Seems like it would only work on binary built-in attributes.
No, !@safe would be mean the exact same thing as if you hadn't applied
@safe. In this case, @system.
--
/Jacob
Dicebot:
Adding negation for most common ones will make it at least
tolerable without any major language changes.
I suggest to stop applying patches over patches over problems,
and instead adopt a more principled approach to solve problems.
The ideas of the Koka language could show a
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 14:59:19 UTC, bearophile wrote:
I suggest to stop applying patches over patches over problems,
and instead adopt a more principled approach to solve problems.
The ideas of the Koka language could show a principled way to
face the problem.
tl; dr: we can't
On Oct 15, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Nick Sabalausky
seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:15:45 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
Totally agree. 90+% of the
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:19:56AM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 02:45, Adam Wilson wrote:
+1
This is why I claw my eyes out every time I have to work with
JavaScript. This is why I find statically typed languages to so much
more powerful for the work I do
One big
On 10/16/13 4:47 AM, simendsjo wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 11:36:30 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 12:52, simendsjo wrote:
If @mutable and @impure existed, I could just add some annotations at
the top of each module, but it wouldn't help on parameters.
We need a
On 2013-10-16 20:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Seems like it would only work on binary built-in attributes.
Yah.
Why?
enum foo;
@foo:
!@foo void bar ();
Just as if @foo wasn't attached to bar. Although I don't know that to
do with multiple attributes of the same type:
@(foo, foo)
On 2013-10-16 17:37, Sean Kelly wrote:
I'm reasonably okay with dynamic languages so long as you can require a
variable to be declared before it's used. Those that implicitly declare on
first assignment are a nightmare however. I once spent an entire day debugging
a Lua app that turned out
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:00:07 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-10-16 20:38, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Seems like it would only work on binary built-in attributes.
Yah.
Why?
enum foo;
@foo:
!@foo void bar ();
You're right. That would be nice for generic code for instance
On 2013-10-16 19:26, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, this is exactly what makes Javascript a royal pain in the neck to
work with. I have the dubious pleasure of having to work on a large
non-trivial JS codebase at work, and it has a reputation of simply
displaying a blank page when something goes
On 2013-10-16 21:08, simendsjo wrote:
Remove all would probably be more in sync with getAttributes that
returns all attributes, but removing only the first would allow greater
flexibility. It's easy to remove all if you have a way to remove one,
but the other way around isn't as easy :)
How
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 19:19:26 UTC, Jacob Carlborg
wrote:
On 2013-10-16 21:08, simendsjo wrote:
Remove all would probably be more in sync with getAttributes
that
returns all attributes, but removing only the first would
allow greater
flexibility. It's easy to remove all if you have
On 2013-10-16 21:23, simendsjo wrote:
Yes, sorry. I was thinking about a new __trait and running a loop.
Is this when we should be dreaming of the all-powerful AST macros again?
Yes, AST macros will solve everything :)
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On 10/16/2013 8:37 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
I'm reasonably okay with dynamic languages so long as you can require a
variable to be declared before it's used. Those that implicitly declare on
first assignment are a nightmare however. I once spent an entire day
debugging a Lua app that turned out to
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 10:26:37 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
(And don't get me started on IE6, which used to be the de facto
standard demanded by every customer some years ago, which doesn't
even *have* an error console. Fortunately, the world has moved on
since.)
I
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 20:20:18 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
I remember going through the same hell with Safari. (I assume
that's
been fixed by now, though.)
It has similar developer tools like Chrome has.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:26:13PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 21:23, simendsjo wrote:
Yes, sorry. I was thinking about a new __trait and running a loop.
Is this when we should be dreaming of the all-powerful AST macros
again?
Yes, AST macros will solve everything :)
[...]
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 17:27:54 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
some default error handler somewhere that swallows all JS errors
That would be function bound to window.onerror event. Remove it,
or put breakpoint in it;
Also use strict; on new code. But it might be valuable to find
out if
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 20:43:30 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:26:13PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 21:23, simendsjo wrote:
Yes, sorry. I was thinking about a new __trait and running a
loop.
Is this when we should be dreaming of the all-powerful AST
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 20:00:45 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 10/16/2013 8:37 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
I'm reasonably okay with dynamic languages so long as you can
require a
variable to be declared before it's used. Those that
implicitly declare on
first assignment are a nightmare
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:14:14PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 19:26, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yeah, this is exactly what makes Javascript a royal pain in the neck
to work with. I have the dubious pleasure of having to work on a
large non-trivial JS codebase at work, and it has a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:48:03PM +0200, Tourist wrote:
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 20:43:30 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:26:13PM +0200, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2013-10-16 21:23, simendsjo wrote:
Yes, sorry. I was thinking about a new __trait and running a loop.
On Wednesday, 16 October 2013 at 20:00:45 UTC, Walter Bright
wrote:
On 10/16/2013 8:37 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
I'm reasonably okay with dynamic languages so long as you can
require a
variable to be declared before it's used. Those that
implicitly declare on
first assignment are a nightmare
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:57:50 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:48:03PM +0200, Tourist wrote:
I would change the world, but God won't release the source code :)
Well even if you have the source code, do you have a way to compile
it? :P
Compiling
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 05:08:38PM -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:57:50 -0700
H. S. Teoh hst...@quickfur.ath.cx wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:48:03PM +0200, Tourist wrote:
I would change the world, but God won't release the source code :)
Well even if
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 15:15:45 Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language
/ccs8yr8
I can't possibly like any language where the type of a variable could change
based on whether the condition in an if statement is true (because a
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:16:17PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 15:15:45 Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language
/ccs8yr8
I can't possibly like any language where the type of a variable could
change
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 02:37:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:16:17PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 15:15:45 Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language
/ccs8yr8
I can't possibly
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 04:49:29 growler wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 02:37:35 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:16:17PM -0400, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 15:15:45 Walter Bright wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 03:07:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I pretty much outright hate dynamic typing and expect that I
will never heavily use a language that has it.
Be careful what you say: D has dynamic typing! (see: std.variant,
or my arsd.jsvar)
The important thing though is
On Thursday, October 17, 2013 05:12:48 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Thursday, 17 October 2013 at 03:07:30 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
I pretty much outright hate dynamic typing and expect that I
will never heavily use a language that has it.
Be careful what you say: D has dynamic typing!
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
Am 16.10.2013 00:15, schrieb Walter Bright:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
Agree.
While I do like dynamic languages for prototyping and small
applications, I came to the conclusion they don't scale in the enterprise.
Plus with type
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:15:45PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
It's interesting how compile times seem to always crop up in discussions
about static vs. dynamic typing, even though it's really an orthogonal
an excellent post, thanks for linking it Walter
the relative weakness of dynamic-typed tools is compounded by the
fact that they tend to be used to build monolithic applications,
typical of what might emerge from rails, php etc. you take the
whole ball of mud or nothing. with no types to
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:15:45 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
Totally agree. 90+% of the argument for dynamic languages is getting
shit done, and yet they ultimately *create* work: More
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:15:45 -0700, Walter Bright
newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
+1
This is why I claw my eyes out every time I have to work with JavaScript.
This is why I find statically typed
On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 15:15:45 -0700
Walter Bright newshou...@digitalmars.com wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
OMG, I just noticed that's a reddit for a comment on hacker news.
I can't wait to see a comment in that reddit get it's
On Tuesday, 15 October 2013 at 23:53:06 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 03:15:45PM -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1oi8wd/ruby_is_a_dying_language/ccs8yr8
It's interesting how compile times seem to always crop up in
discussions
about
73 matches
Mail list logo
