Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by canes123456 on Sunday March 19, 2017 @10:59AM
(#13907424)
No one is arguing to roll your own when there a generic sort in the standard library. The issue with clever things is that people try to make a all purpose solution for what could be a simple one off solution. The all purpose is only used for 2-3 uses and it never battle tested.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by unscaled on Sunday March 19, 2017 @11:14AM
(#13907547)
Clever things like a sort function that can sort both ints and floats and any new type that implements a comparison function?
Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by voutasaurus on Sunday March 19, 2017 @01:34PM
(#13908469)
Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by canes123456 on Sunday March 19, 2017 @12:29PM
(#13908032)
I am not arguing for Go. I am arguing that there is an issue with some complex languages. Go is trying to avoid that issue. I agree that the issue is real but also think go takes it a little too far.
Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by daxfohl on Sunday March 19, 2017 @12:17PM
(#13907954)
Or a quicksort in constant memory.
Re:Three Months of Go, from a Haskeller’s perspective (2016)
by coldtea on Sunday March 19, 2017 @12:53PM
(#13908181)
Haskell, if that's where the sneer is addressed to, absolutely gives you that.
It's just toy first-timer Haskell examples of quicksort (that still work, mind you) that don't.
But then again, take a language like C, and consider how many things (like proper error handling) are missing from 99% of the toy tutorial examples available.