copergi
Javascript does not define the implementation details. It does not have to be interpreted, and in fact I don't believe any modern implementation is interpreted. Javascript is generally compiled to byte code which is then run in a VM, or native machine code (V8 at least does this). There is no reason javascript could not have a static type system, there are statically typed scripting languages. It is dynamically typed by deliberate decision, not "we can't do it any other way".
Why would that happen? Ignorantly bashing haskell strawmen is pretty common here. Btw, while you hit two of the biggest ones, you did forget to complain about it being "academic" and thus unusable for "real world" programming. That should be pretty much standard by now.
We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.
>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".
Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.
Go is not in that world. It isn't even in the same star system.
No, people who didn't read it and just repeat the title without knowing what he was talking about may be too naive, but the original point was not.
And I can do it without ctags. That's the point.
>Depends, one proeminent C project doesn't use that: the linux kernel
That doesn't make his statement "depends" at all. A single project not using that style does not contradict it being "pretty common".
No. I stopped bothering with that cluster fuck like a decade ago. It is a complete waste of time.
You probably shouldn't be giving advice then.
>This is how Galois and Facebook are taking advantage of Haskell
Facebook is using haskell for a high performance, high concurrency server for filtering. You do realize how similar that is to a web server right?
Haskell doesn't have a cryptic syntax. The same complaint would be just as (in)valid leveled at any commonly used language. We're not talking APL here.
>There are so many great languages out there nowadays, Clojure, Go, Erlang.
Go does not belong in that list.
>I don't see where Haskell would be a better fit
For writing software. I realize that sounds snarky, but that really is the answer. To see the problem with your question, just turn it around. Where would clojure or go be a better fit than haskell?
I wouldn't call it either of those things. They are so general that people have a hard time getting them. That's all.
>That's what the "mumble mumble endofunctors" joke is getting at: sometimes they're a useful generalization, but more often they're a way to make easy things sound hard, or to make bad teachers sound smart.
That is not at all what the joke is getting at (and that doesn't even make sense).
It isn't magical. I've spoken to many of them. I've seen the work they've done over the last 15 years. They earned my trust.
>Much of the projects early funding was via DARPA
No, a relatively small amount was via DARPA, and that funding was pulled due to Theo criticizing the US government. And that was not early in the project, it was like 8 years into the project's life. Doesn't really scream "NSA plants".
You overestimate how many web hipsters there are. And annoying them is not "being an immature brat". It is precisely to discourage their involvement. Because the mentality behind the web fads are precisely why the entire world of software is layers upon layers of shit stacked on top of each other.
You might want to take your own advice. There have been tons of vulnerabilities in openssl, not one.
>LibreSSL inherits all of the undiscovered vulnerabilities in its huge code base.
That would be why it is being gutted and audited. That's the whole point.
And has done it so poorly that it has been a security nightmare the whole time. Just because something is given away, doesn't mean the world is obligated to be thankful for it. Giving away crap doesn't make it not stink.
If you follow that through the series of links, you find that it is just an assumption based on one guy who didn't know the project existed thinking unchanged = unmaintained.
No, why would it? If you don't trust the openbsd developers, the don't use their code.