ignorabilis

7 ms·

1.
by ignorabilis 3y ago
How so? You work with Clojure or CL?
2.
The Perils of Clojure(medium.com)
3 points by ignorabilis 3y ago|2 comments
3.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
Experience is just data. So one day when you go to Everest hiring a sherpa might not be needed. Why? Because a simulator can be created, based on his knowledge and all the other knowledge about Everest. Regarding your other questions: Human
4.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
I think this is pretty amazing - in my own country we have a town - Dimitrovgrad - built completely from scratch and only after that populated.
5.
Build First – China's Ghost Business Park(bloomberg.com)
2 points by ignorabilis 11y ago|1 comments
6.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
For me it is anything that helps me not fix on the problem. Standing in front of the computer, staring at the code always pushes me in the same direction; once I am up to something else, but still 'lightly' thinking about the prob
7.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
Parenthesis in Lisp are not more than those in C. It's just that there is only one type of parenthesis and the accepted convention is to pile all the closing ones at the last line. When you have some time play with them in both C and L
8.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
This is purely based on numbers, but still might be a little subjective. Nevertheless here it is: https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=1E5AA35A965D3234%2...
9.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
Actually the OP uses Clojure in his project.
10.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
In OOP everything happens somewhere else because there's always another layer of indirection, and so the code that should change the variable isn't in the function (or file) that you're reading. - and because of that when y
11.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
As long as there is some sort of logic tests can be written. The question is can we prevent writing tests at all by designing better our applications and by taking advantage of FP languages and tools like the REPL? And I believe at least in
12.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
Well, to be honest I didn't. I just started dedicating my time and efforts only for a few select people that are worth it. Otherwise social interaction can be too tiring and even lead to depression. Empty conversations, not loneliness,
13.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
You don't need to mock it. In your tests just manually call the code that is going to be executed if the I/O call returns an error. This goes for both OOP and FP.
14.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
I/O is someone else's code, not yours. So it's someone else's responsibility to test it. You should just test the arguments that you pass (in case they are generated) and trust that the I/O is properly tested by its
15.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
In the previous post I started with in theory . What this means is that theoretically things can go like this and in practice they have gone for me until now (with Clojure, so +1 for you too :)). It doesn't mean that it will work for
16.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
You should be testing your own code and not catching exceptions. I/O will either return an error or the string you need. There is no third option. So put aside the I/O - concentrate on testing the string transformations and on tes
17.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
+1 for Clojure. I suppose you will be migrating to Haskell because it is a PF language. What would you miss most from Clojure once you migrate?
18.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
With the .NET Framework actually declining, Swift still being far away from the server and frameworks like Meteor, JS seems to have a really good position. With that said I will root for Clojure + ClojureScript. One could theoretically buil
19.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
If you ask me, no chance to rule the web. JavaScript has been the standard for a very long time now. Because JS is not a flawless language dozens of js precompilers have been created till now, so the competition is pretty rough. Swift tries
20.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
Mocks, stubs, shims, etc. are usually just hiding the fact that the code to be tested is terrible, even in OOP languages. Furthermore side effects have nothing to do with testing one's code. Why? Because you have to test your own logic
21.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
What I actually meant is that people are usually not up for the challenge at all. That being said I have found a few people that may be ready to walk with me. Since I am very grateful I am willing to wait for them and help them whenever the
22.
by ignorabilis 11y ago
What struck me the most in your comment is the fact that people just disappear. It's the same with me. If I don't call the other person won't either. If I call he/she is busy, on vacation, doing something else. If we mee