suprtx

4 ms·

1.
by suprtx 1y ago
Prolog, not being based on imperative programming or FP, but being based on logic programming, is another example in regards to this topic. Prolog can be very concise and clear for a specific set of problems, but reasoning about the time co
2.
by suprtx 1y ago
Sorry, apparently there was a "true" implementation in Haskell in one of the answers, though I am not sure how the lazy evaluation of Haskell is handled. https://stackoverflow.com/a/7719971 You can see that t
3.
by suprtx 1y ago
I think you are correct, perhaps even being too careful in your claims. I think functional and imperative programming, in practice, tend to have different types of constraints, and there are different things that are easy to reason about in
4.
by suprtx 1y ago
> understand Should be "understanding".
5.
by suprtx 1y ago
Sorry, nit: "fails flat" should probably be "falls flat".
6.
by suprtx 1y ago
I forgot to mention that even Haskell has had some strangeness in its pattern matching once, that it banned later, as recently as 2010. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3748592/what-are-nk-patt... > What do
7.
by suprtx 1y ago
While I only watched 25%-50% of the linked talk by Casey Muratori, spread out here and there, and fast-forwarded through the rest, I did not like his talk. And it reflects on this blog post as well. Casey Muratori obviously spent a lot of t
8.
by suprtx 1y ago
HN is a censorship haven and all, but I'd like to point out just one thing: >Compare this with languages like Zig, Rust, and Python that have 1 compiler and doesn't have any of the problems of C++ in terms of interop and not ha