leafboi

6 ms·

1.
by leafboi 6y ago
Great analogy, but analogies can be deceptive, because while the snail can coexist with the tiger, for every two animals that coexist hundreds still have to fail the natural selection process. We like to view the world through an idealistic
2.
by leafboi 6y ago
Please. There's nothing wrong with my ego. I'm not bragging about anything. I am simply explaining to you my reasoning. I think you need help with differentiating. I know some good therapists that can help you and can send you som
3.
by leafboi 6y ago
That's not mutating anything. It's not a true setter.
4.
by leafboi 6y ago
>I don't think there is nothing in OOP that "forces" you to explicitly mutate state. People just happen to do it that way, even if there was no need for that. I never said it forces you to do this. Please read my post care
5.
by leafboi 6y ago
I think you missed my point. I'm saying when you aren't aggressive people tend not to want to intellectually engage with you. People are emotional creatures and what doesn't excite them emotionally they don't engage. I&#
6.
by leafboi 6y ago
From a purely structural standpoint there is no risk. But you are talking about something different. You use the word "confusion." Confusion is an organizational issue that can be handled with social solutions like names, namespac
7.
by leafboi 6y ago
Thanks. But this is the internet. I use a bit of aggression experimentally at times. Overall though, it sounds confrontational but I'm actually pretty factual and I never attacked anyone personally, it's all about the topic and id
8.
by leafboi 6y ago
You can't talk about modularity without touching on shared mutable state. Shared mutable state is the fundamental primitive that eliminates modularity. You get rid of this, you're entire program is now modular. None of the writing
9.
by leafboi 6y ago
All right. I'm wrong. Didn't know this. Thanks for linking. Still can't exactly fault me on that. It's not easy to find the contextual blog post if this post doesn't easily say it's part of a series. Still thou
10.
by leafboi 6y ago
they use the term breaking down a monolith and "architecture" so from that you can derive that it's literally about using an entire VM or computer to enforce boundaries. Folders and files are used in "monoliths" any
11.
by leafboi 6y ago
I think it's kind of bad that we have this trend to use hardware to enforce modularity. If it's a performance issue, sure break it up into more hardware. If it's just code modularity than by shifting to microservices you are
12.
by leafboi 6y ago
I agree with everything you said. To address the part we disagree though: >On one point I disagree: " In both OOP and procedural programming your designs can never have this level of flexibility due in to modules being tied together
13.
by leafboi 6y ago
> You chose to 1) Use one that has legislation protecting it so as to make your analogy worthless and 2) use veterans specifically as if you deserve to have a title protected like people putting their life on the line. First off you&#x27
14.
by leafboi 6y ago
How would you properly learn this craft? What resources would you recommend or look into?
15.
by leafboi 6y ago
It's not low at all. It is also 100% relevant. It's called misusing titles which is the topic at hand. In some cases it's ok in some cases it's not ok. I have not insulted veterans in any way. You're just trying to
16.
by leafboi 6y ago
>Then for some reason, the SV bubble latched on to "software engineer," without understanding that it was supposed to be a joke. It started as a joke? I had no idea. Is there a definitive source or initial point where it all st
17.
by leafboi 6y ago
Don't call me low that's rude. I find it low whenever a commenter on HN decides to be call someone low simply because they disagree. You're using words to twist my statement as if I'm insulting veterans. I clearly am no
18.
by leafboi 6y ago
I disagree. It's blurry and not so clear cut but certain ranks need to be earned otherwise it's fraud. For example what if I called myself a Navy Seal and combat veteran even though I'm not? That would be dishonorable and ins
19.
by leafboi 6y ago
I've found that FP using function composition or other higher order forms of function like composition mitigates the design problem that you and many others complain about. Essentially in FP you design your entire program as a single i
20.
by leafboi 6y ago
The hard truth is that all the changes you made have little impact. The worst case scenario for species and the environment is pretty much on track to play out. But we don't like the truth do we? I see myself getting voted down for thi
21.
by leafboi 6y ago
It's a higher order composition of functors. Lack of Commutativity still applies and is the factor for why the codomains aren't equal not associativity. It's all pedantry though. Overall you're right. Intuitively the com
22.
by leafboi 6y ago
Function composition is associative but not commutative. So in essence given three functions z,g,f and composition operator <.> f . g . z != z . g . f (commutativity) which is sort of what fold left or right is doing (but with
23.
by leafboi 6y ago
Elements in sets are not ordinal. In principle they are the same as the set (B, A) is the same set as (A, B). If you're saying that foldRight in scala exists aesthetic reasons... well can't argue with that. I figured it was more f
24.
by leafboi 6y ago
There's a real performance downgrade when performing in front of people. To add more accuracy to your assessment I would give these people the opportunity to perform in a room without someone watching.
25.
by leafboi 6y ago
Another thing to consider is even if you interviewed that many people there's really know way to evaluate your interview accuracy and performance unless you work with all 100 people.
26.
by leafboi 6y ago
Assuming the data structure is a singly linked list than yes it's not stack safe. At a high level foldLeft and foldRight represent abstraction leakage. The Domain and Codomain for both functions are exactly the same. If there is no per
27.
by leafboi 6y ago
>One question I would ask you is: what is _similar_ about them? Could you express all of these with one abstraction? Is there a difference between choosing `class` as the base abstraction, vs a closure? The answer is yes you can. But you
28.
by leafboi 6y ago
There's nothing for me to learn here other than domain theory which is very advanced math and how people behave. If you follow the conversation you'll see that the entire argument turned into a battle of definitions with me turnin
29.
by leafboi 6y ago
No you should just stop voting me down. I'm literally going to go negative soon, I just joined. I literally cannot talk to you if you continue voting me down. It's bad form. >I think you should look into domain theory it is one
30.
by leafboi 6y ago
>I don't take wikipedia to be authoritative about anything but I'll bite. No but it's more authoritative than a random person on the internet (you). For things like this it's good enough. I'm not writing a paper

More ›