japano1se
japano1se on Hacker News
Anecdotally, this does make sex with my boyfriend less enjoyable, since it becomes a chore to get him to cum.
It's almost as if boiling something complicated down to "government vs private companies" and saying "one is good and the other is evil" is wrong and stupid.
Real Soon Now™. It's pretty much vaporware at this point.
I've been reading "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" recently; it's very good, especially if you enjoy mythology or heroic fiction in general. Not sure I agree with the psychoanalytic stuff in it, though.
And cryptocurrency/blockchain enthusiasts tell me it's not a hype train and/or bubble!
So of course, going by the logic of linking that article, we're all wasting our time and should just be using PHP?
Thanks for the "no u".
One thing you're correct about: I have avoided debating it, because debating concepts like this is pointless and has nothing to do with real-world code. Which brings me back to the point I made on the article: why does he care so much that he can't have an immutable map? What problem can he not solve as a result of it? The example he's given is a toy problem, and the constraints that make him want such a thing are left unspecified.
Don't move the goalposts. Global state is not the same issue as immutable data. And even if it was, Go has the `const` keyword anyway, making it entirely irrelevant to the OP article.
This fad of using immutability everywhere and treating it like a silver bullet absolutely is new and is a fad.
Absolutely. With respect to this article and immutability, the strongest arguments I've seen for it are for concurrent programming, like the very successful Erlang solutions used at Ericsson, which I generally don't have an interest in. So, it is reason #4 on your list. For the types of program and the types of problem I need to solve, it's a moot point - people have been getting along just fine without immutable state and continue to do so, and to learn how to do it differently would just be more trouble than it's worth, if not an outright regression.
This is the major problem I have with this sort of article; people never talk about languages in the context of actual working programs, just engage in dry theorizing or armchair programming. If the author put the complaint from this article into context, I'd not have a problem with it. But because it's a toy example with no relevance to actual programs people might want to write and use, it's unhelpful and misleading.
Of course the problem he has is that it doesn't follow the hot new immutability fad, and of course he doesn't explain what he needs it for, just links to a stack exchange question which essentially says that it
might be useful for
some cases.
It seems a lot of these articles, and programming language theory in general, is just complaining about features without any thought as to why they matter. What is this "problem" stopping him from doing? Why does it matter? And why should I abandon a language that has served me very well just because some edge-case feature is not supported?
I'm not that commenter, but as a former Christian I must say that the most common Christian attitudes towards this sort of thing are highly irritating to non-Christians. Many Christians constantly bring up their religion and their terrible metaphysics* whether or not there was an invitation for them to do so, use their God to smack around people who don't behave the way they think they should, and generally lower the quality of any given discussion. Advice to pray to a God you don't believe in is useless advice. Imagine if I told you to sacrifice a lamb to Thor to cure your toothache.
* By terrible metaphysics, I mean to say that Christianity's incentive to act ethical, the judgment after death, also incentivizes people to disregard the world they actually live in, leading to unpleasant or even (counter-intuitively) unethical behavior. Some Christians also use these metaphysics as an excuse to treat non-believers like dirt. Not to mention taking the Bible as the infallible word of God that supposedly has all the answers, even though it's full of contradictions and blatant untruths.
FWIW, despite this comment probably coming across as quite hostile, I don't want to attack your faith. I'm just sick of the way some Christians choose to represent their faith in public.
Funny you should say that. I'm from an English-speaking country and I use "sth" a lot.
I'm fascinated by this idea.
Let's say there's tech to freeze your age at whatever point you like. Where would you want it to be frozen?
Have you considered spacemacs?
http://spacemacs.org/I've been using it for a month or so. It's very easy to set up and configure, and it's built with evil-mode in mind. It also has very good modes for development - I use it for Go and everything including completion and hinting function signatures worked right out of the box once the Go layer was installed (which is one line in your .spacemacs)
Small pictures to put in chat clients, rather like large emoji. It seems pointless, but I've had friends complain about going from clients that support stickers back to text chats like irc.