News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The 2,500 year old history of why Python’s all([]) returns True. Parent comment

Re:The 2,500 year old history of why Python’s all([]) return... by lmm on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @10:32AM (#22617032)
> Latency and memory usage can be safety concerns. Most functional languages do not let you reason about that.

Most languages of any kind do not let you reason about that. You're not wrong, but neither is this some specific issue with functional languages. Indeed I'd say functional languages are at the forefront of trying to bring in ways to reason about those, with things like Linear Haskell or https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/coq-wor...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The 2,500 year old history of why Python’s all([]) return... by gridlockd on Wednesday March 18, 2020 @11:32AM (#22617726)
> Most languages of any kind do not let you reason about that.

I might as well generalize my statement to:

"Programming languages tend to elevate some ideals before concerns of practical safety, performance or just common sense."

It just wouldn't make as much sense in-context.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The 2,500 year old history of why Python’s all([]) return... by lmm on Thursday March 19, 2020 @06:49AM (#22626260)
> "Programming languages tend to elevate some ideals before concerns of practical safety, performance or just common sense."

That statement would be difficult to substantiate, particularly in the context of functional languages. Practical safety, performance, and common sense are absolutely priorities; the ideals that functional language design follows are servants of those goals, not the master.

[ Parent | on HN ]