frowaway001

8 ms·

1.
by frowaway001 11y ago
1) You basically have both () and [], wasting one of the scarcest resources in syntax (brackets). Some people might argue that getting a value from an array is totally different from getting the same value from a funct
2.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> Not to mention you are quite puzzlingly wrong on many accounts. I'd love to see an example where this is the case.
3.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> you're still iterating over the list twice There is nothing about higher-order operations that would require developers to implement xs.map(...).map(...).map(...) or xs.Select(...).Select(...).Select(...) or whatever as multiple t
4.
by frowaway001 11y ago
It is perfectly fine that many design choices in Rust evolved from "let's copy what $random_language did", but mentioning the drawbacks of that kind of approach to language design suddenly requires "scientific studies de
5.
by frowaway001 11y ago
It says a lot about Rust's culture. If they are not only _not_ interested, but actively hostile towards input, why should I bother? Just look at the replies. Sure, it's possible to hand-wave issues away by setting the standards lo
6.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Yes, but getting 8 downvotes in two comments ... why should I care?
7.
by frowaway001 11y ago
At least people use it, which is more than what could ever be said about Haskell, so it had a larger impact overall ... while getting things done at the same time. You only need to have one look at it's module system/Cabal/Ha
8.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Apart from the Rust's usual rule to invent some abbreviations, but only apply them half the time. Then "types start with an uppercase letter" except when the language creators break their own rule. Then the fun "sometime
9.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Most other things (like the ones you mentioned) require a level of expressiveness that Go lacks. SQL: Pointless without Generics. Cache layer: Pointless without Generics. ORM: Pointless even with Generics.
10.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> What reason is that? Groovy made Java slightly less painful too use, but added its own warts. Today we have languages which are better than Java without adding all of Groovy's mistakes. > They're an Apache supported projec
11.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Groovy and Grails have lost their reason for existence years ago, and without the sponsoring they are both dead.
12.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> Not everyone wants good enough; some people want an excellent, purpose built language for the web with all of the goodies we’ve come to expect on Day 1--no polyfills, no hacks, no waiting for a years long standards process to run its c
13.
by frowaway001 11y ago
It's kind of telling that they feel that they first need to tell Go developers what an AST is ... PHP redux?
14.
by frowaway001 11y ago
"Why should I ever wash my hands before a medical procedure? It just makes things more complex!" –– Surgeon, ~1700.
15.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Compilation to JS is a few additional seconds during development, and the rest of your comment is right to the point.
16.
by frowaway001 11y ago
So why would I use this given there are languages which - are much better than Dart, - run in the browser and - run on a crossplatform VM which is much better than DartVM?
17.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Then pick Scala.js. Solid, mature, great libraries and one of the best languages out there, even when competing against real (in the sense of not compile-to-JavaScript-only) languages.
18.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Sounds more like you never actually checked the available options.
19.
by frowaway001 11y ago
Scala.js, Elm, PureScript, ...
20.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> Dart is the innovation. > Dart is the most ambitious compile-to-JS option. Wait WHAT? Not sure if this is supposed to be irony, but if not I'd like to understand your opinion on this.
21.
by frowaway001 11y ago
> This is only about the Dart VM, not about the Dart language. The writing is on the wall already. If Dart hasn't the chance to become a natively supported language, why would anyone pick it as a compile-to-JavaScript language, give
22.
by frowaway001 11y ago
If you ever wondered why Lispers were considered condescending, arrogant, self-absorbed dorks back in the old ways reading LoL might give you a few hints. I can't recommend that Clojure people read Hoyte's masterpiece, because Clo
23.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Just when people thought that we had one less useless language to deal with ...
24.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Or just terrible syntax choices like in Java or Rust.
25.
by frowaway001 12y ago
I think pron knows what he's talking about, considering that's all what he does in pretty much every Scala-related submission. He's not hating Scala, he's just desperate selling his 5 years out of date opinion about it o
26.
by frowaway001 12y ago
Currently, Scala is an impure language. There is some research going on how Scala can start checking and enforcing purity. Having an IO type constructor with the usual monadic convenience operations is one possibility, but people are active
27.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> OCaml compiles pretty fast, especially if you target bytecode. Yes, but OCaml doesn't "offer very similar functionalities". Haskell is quite a bit slower if you consider that you often have to compile not only your own c
28.
by frowaway001 12y ago
It's crazy that in these slides he says "I wanted a hipster language" -- most languages use [] for arrays so I used (). WHY!!!!? Just to be different? No actual real advantage? That's a terrible reas
29.
by frowaway001 12y ago
There are some really really desperate people in this thread who keep posting this "the sky is falling!!!" type of claim in every Scala-related submission. :-)
30.
by frowaway001 12y ago
> One issue I have with it. I don't think it's complex, but I think people are not spending the right time learning it. People learn the subset of features they like and stay with it, and because there are so many ways to skin

More ›