sklogic

8 ms·

1.
by sklogic 10y ago
> they have a cost associated with them and their misuse makes things worse Omg. My assessment was correct, after all. > Hence, they're not objectively superior to anything else Of course they are.
2.
by sklogic 10y ago
The study is related - it shows an attitude to self esteem, while you're apparently trying to compare the self esteem itself.
3.
by sklogic 10y ago
> Click on the time (for example "2 minutes ago") to open the post and reply there. Shit. Is it a new feature? I do not remember this working before. > And my point is that you haven't answered why using a static type s
4.
by sklogic 10y ago
> Please stop editing your posts 40 minutes after you initially post them in order to muddle the post history. HN does not allow to continue a thread below a certain threshold. > I think strong static type systems are useful in many
5.
by sklogic 10y ago
> Ok, only Americans have over-inflated self esteem, Again. Only Americans are conditioned to value and cherish their self esteem. That was my statement. Other cultures do not put any emphasis on self esteem (and many consider it as so
6.
by sklogic 10y ago
> You're saying Americans are the only people in the world who care about themselves? No, I'm saying that only Americans are so conditioned to value their "self esteem". There is no emphasis on this stupidity in the o
7.
by sklogic 10y ago
> What culture doesn't acknowledge self respect, and one's place in society relative to others? What culture (besides the Northern Americans) would so blindly equate self respect to self esteem? The others understand better tha
8.
by sklogic 10y ago
It is very childish and stupid to respond to a proof with a shit like "no, this is not a proof". > The idea that static type systems are better to use (in general) because you can make dynamic type systems on top of them is sim
9.
by sklogic 10y ago
Americans are conditioned from the early childhood to value their "self esteem". The others do not even care.
10.
by sklogic 10y ago
Sorry, cannot reply down the thread, so I'll put my answer here: > This is not necessarily true: Static typing quite often requires you to satisfy the type system We're talking about static typing in general, not some particula
11.
by sklogic 10y ago
In a static type system, all of the expressions and expression-like constructs of your language may have a constraint attached to them, which guarantees that a value this expression yields have certain properties; In a static type sys
12.
by sklogic 10y ago
I provided you with a proof. Cannot you follow such a trivial logic? Let me repeat it again, slowly: 1) Dynamic typing is a subset of static typing. With static typing you can do everything that is possible with a dynamic typing, at no ad
13.
by sklogic 10y ago
> We are talking about the value of different kinds of type systems and using them. Exactly. And you're apparently suggesting that there may not be a single case where you may want static constraints. Kinda very strong position, nee
14.
by sklogic 10y ago
> No, cutting away from something can make it better What?!? You can build a dynamic type system on top of a static one. The opposite is impossible. What else is there to even talk about? > "More diverse things" is ill defin
15.
by sklogic 10y ago
> Please, do present the solid theory that is not simply derived from speculation and opinion. What theory shows is enough to claim superiority: 1) Dynamic typing is a subset of a static typing. This thing alone is enough. 2) Static typi
16.
by sklogic 10y ago
Anecdotes are case studies . In social sciences, for example, it's often the only thing you have. Do not dismiss this kind of evidence when you do not have any other options.
17.
by sklogic 10y ago
Empirical evidence is nearly impossible in this area. On the other hand, we have a solid theory , not some "beliefs". If you want to dismiss the entire PL theory, you have to try really hard to justify such a stupid move first. T
18.
by sklogic 10y ago
This is exactly the fallacy that dynamic proponents are constantly running into. Do not help them by reinforcing such claims. Static typing bears important semantics far beyond a mere "validity checking" and compile time optimisat
19.
by sklogic 10y ago
Do not forget that this very "self esteem" thingy is almost exclusively American. The other nations do not even think in such terms.
20.
by sklogic 10y ago
Given a huge skill gap and inability to factor out methodology differences, I cannot see how such a study can be done at all. Anecdotes are the best we have. Far better than a pseudoscience with agenda.
21.
by sklogic 10y ago
Compile time reflection have absolutely nothing to do with dynamic typing.
22.
by sklogic 10y ago
Because the author has an agenda, he's a dynamic typing and unit testing proponent. Do not expect anything even distantly resembling any kind of an objective science from someone who clearly is not interested in facts.
23.
by sklogic 10y ago
Was ok up until type systems. Please stop citing this pathetic "empirical study" already, it's totally unscientific.
24.
by sklogic 10y ago
You know the language is screwed beyond any hope when you need an entire book on semantics of 'this'.
25.
by sklogic 10y ago
> mixing lexing and parsing is a bad idea Why exactly? I find it rather liberating to mix lexing and parsing, for any possible language. > show me some languages like C, Java, Python, etc. expressed as PEGs. Feel free to browse my git
26.
by sklogic 10y ago
> because PEG parsers don't really support that kind of consistency-checking Not true at all. You can easily check if a new parser is breaking anything in the old one. And in practice you never mix languages at the same level. A mor
27.
by sklogic 10y ago
:( For you, Americans, it all might seem a bit abstract and detached. For us, it's a very heated and real class war. And we do not take prisoners.
28.
by sklogic 10y ago
> which is exponential in general In Packrat it's linear. > Pratt parsing And it's a natural match for Packrat, they work together really well. > writing a hand-written parser is straightforward (although laborious) Not t
29.
by sklogic 10y ago
This is not because of a parsing complexity, it is only because C++ is an awful language for writing ASTs and parsers. Without all the boilerplate, an AST can be much smaller.
30.
by sklogic 10y ago
Why would you parse C++ on a low memory device anyway? What are you going to do with it? Anything that follows the parsing would require far more memory.

More ›