AnswerAndForget

5 ms·

1.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
Yeah, that was not my point. These aren't but idiosyncrasies of Perl's design, and to model itself on constructs which evolved without direction and which take years to master, just to save a keystroke or two once in a blue moon, is a rathe
2.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
'Knowing Perl' is a rather hard thing to do when the list of completely ad-hoc implicit variables and hidden context-sensitive surprises is seemingly endless.
3.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
I think mattacular wrote about the run-of-the-mill programming blog that gets submitted to HN. They feel more substantial than one of those spammy "125 free icon sets that'll turn you into a Design god", but they're mostly half-baked regu
4.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
Care to give an alternative explanation to the contents at the other side of the URL I gave?
5.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
A well known and tested approach, sum types (tagged unions), would have been way better, but it was cast aside because the designers were apparently unaware of the improvements to union types made since C's inception: http://www.reddit.com
6.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
Isn't the ecosystem always trotted out while defending PHP, as well as its 'accessibility' to amateurs? Well, those amateurs are part of the PHP ecosystem, and you'll have to put up with that... or not.
7.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
Who said anything about coolness? Seriously, why do people think that just because all languages are Turing complete, any further discussion is just a popularity contest?
8.
by AnswerAndForget 14y ago
Not exactly. You see, you have to define new types from scratch with your approach. With Haskell's approach, you just have to use the Maybe parametric type, which just needs to be defined once. In other words, you just go and use a generic