261–270 of 663 posts
How fast this got to the top, you would think John Carmack just invented nuclear fusion.
Just like AGI he was supposedly brought on board for but…..checks notes. Nothing.
That said it's worth listening when he chimes in about C/C++ or optimisation as he has earned his respect when it comes to these fields.
Will he crack AGI? Probably not. He didn't crack rockets either. Doesn't make him any less awesome, just makes him human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I'm not that good a programmer, because I don't really understand why variables that can't be varied are useful, or why you'd use that. How do you write code that actually works?
It forces you to consider when, where and why a change occurs and can help reason later about changes. Thread safety is a big plus.
Or then would the block of floats be "immutable but not from this bit"? So the code that processes a block of samples can write to it, the code that fills the sample buffer can write to it, but nothing else should?
> I wish it was the default, and mutable was a keyword. I wish the IDE would simply provide a small clue, visible but graphically unobtrusive, that it was mutated . In fact, I end up wishing this about almost every language feature that passes my mind. For example, I don't need to choose whether I can or can't append to a list; just make it unappendable if you can prove I don't append. I don't care if it's a map, lis…
In my IntelliJ (a recent version), if I write a small Java function like this: private static void blah() { final int abc = 3; for (int def = 7; def The variable 'def' is underlined. Mouse-over hint shows: 'Reassigned local variable'. To be clear, 'abc' is not underlined. When I write Java, I try to use the smallest variable scopes possible with as much final (keyword) as possible. It helps me to write more maintaina…
When I started programming in Haskell, where all variables are immutable, I felt like I was in a straitjacket Then, suddenly, the enlightenment
One area that I like to have immutability is in function argument passing. In javascript (and many other languages), I find it weird that arguments in function act differently depending on if they are simple (strings, numbers) versus if they are complex (objects, arrays). I want everything that passes through a function to be a copy unless I put in a symbol or keyword that it suppose to be passed by reference. I made…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a huge amount of syntactic sugar that has been added over the years that doesn't do whole lot IMO. It is often imported from other languages (usually JavaScript and/or Python). e.g. Just a very simple example to illustrate the point if (customer != null) { customer.Order = GetCurrentOrder(); } vs if (customer is not null) { customer.Order = GetCurrentOrder(); } Is there really any benefit in adding "is/is no…
In your sample there really is no benefit to using the "is" operator over just checking for null (assuming you haven't overloaded the "!=" operator). However, the "is" operator is a lot more powerful, you can match an expression against a pattern with it. Would you say that these samples show no benefit to using the "is" operator? if (obj is string s) { ... } if (date is { Month: 10, Day: https://learn.microsoft.com/…
Microsoft give the same example though. I understand what hes saying, theres conceptual overlap between is and ==. Many ways to do the same thing.
Why couldnt it just be...
if (obj == string s) { ... }
Well yea, that's what sane languages that aren't Python, C, and C++ do. See F# and Rust.
This would require coming up with an order of magnitude more variable names which is just unnecessary cognitive load.
When I started programming in Haskell, where all variables are immutable, I felt like I was in a straitjacket Then, suddenly, the enlightenment
How does Haskell deal with things like memory-mapped I/O or signal handlers where the value of a variable can be changed by factors outside of the programmer's control?