Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 221 posts

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#191

Post by imanaccount247 »

zapt02 wrote: post #180
imanaccount247 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Does Perl, Python or Ruby have built-in automatic escaping and sanitization? No, of course not. That's very much the point. PHP's broken attempt at that created security holes. >On top of that all three of those languages require additional setup No they don't. It is just that someone else has already done the setup for you with PHP at most cheapo hosting companies. Installing python is no harder than installing PHP…

Providing sanitization functions 10 years ago is broken to you? If you check my earlier post you'll see that prepared statements are widely used nowadays. Escaping functions like htmlentities() are also still effective. You are right, there are a bunch of hosting company providing 0-config PHP, but setting it up in any distro is also never more than one command away, unlike the other languages mentioned. Regarding Ru…

>but setting it up in any distro is also never more than one command away, unlike the other languages mentioned.

No, exactly like the other languages mentioned. If you are seriously going to try to pretend installing python or ruby or perl is harder than installing PHP then you can't expect anyone to react as if you are being serious and genuine.

>I can't even find a tutorial on how to run Ruby under FastCGI

That sounds like a serious problem. I would suggest looking for a local "introduction to computers" type class. They tend to teach basic usage of windows and the web, including how to use google to search for things. I think it would help you a lot.

>and RoR appears to be the de facto way to run Ruby websites

While I'm sure the rails guys must be flattered, I don't know how you got that appearance. There's a whole bunch of frameworks, just like with PHP. And you don't need to use any of them, just like with PHP. But of course, you know all this and are just trolling.

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#192

Post by imanaccount247 »

stared wrote: post #127
imanaccount247 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I know a lot of people encharmed by it, but no-one productive (i.e. delivering products quickly; it's not the same as solving pure, mathematical problems). Is this actually true, or is it "true in your heart"? Very few people use haskell for solving "pure mathematical problems". People use it for things like developing the fastest microkernel in existence, doing high volume trading, making games, and writing boring…

Links or it didn't happen. I don't imply that nobody uses it for solving practical problems. Just, I made my judgement based on: - friends (I know, it may be biased), - GitHub codes I use (and in general, popularity), - blog posts on Haskell (I encounter mostly language-oriented; less problem-oriented like "let's make a 3d game", "web scraping", "machine learning", "web dev" etc).

>Links or it didn't happen.

To what? I'm supposed to link you to reality? How about since haskell is a general purpose, turing complete language, you demonstrate that there's some magical reason that it can only be used for "pure math problems" and nobody can be productive in it doing "real work". Why should a random nonsense claim be given the standing of fact and need to be disproved?

>friends (I know, it may be biased)

That's why I asked if it was true in your heart. Lots of people say things they think sound reasonable and believable based on other third hand information, but which are in fact made up. I have a very hard time believing you have so many friends into haskell and unable to write programs in it. Especially after teaching a bunch of PHP people who had never heard of functional programming (and half had never heard of types!) haskell in a few short lessons. Either your friends are some crazy statistical anomaly, or my developers are. Or perhaps your friends are apocryphal.

>GitHub codes I use

"I don't use anything written in haskell so you can't write anything practical in it" is a pretty poor argument.

>I encounter mostly language-oriented

Where are you encountering them? And are you sure you aren't just misinterpreting "practical" blog posts as "academic" because they mention something you don't want to hear like monads? Even most things I would assume you classify as "language-oriented" are still about solving practical problems.

http://ro-che.info/articles/2014-12-26-monad-control-type-sy...

That might sound scary to people who don't know haskell, but it is about solving a common issue with web development (and other server type programming) in a nice reusable library. Do you really think there's tens of thousands of people just sitting around writing haskell code that does nothing for no reason?

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#193

Post by imanaccount247 »

RivieraKid wrote: post #106
imanaccount247 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just don't find Haskell ... to be as productive as many would suggest >I have ... very little experience with Haskell So, how would you know?

I don't know with 100% certainity, but it's a moderately confident conclusion from my little experience.

I am suggesting that your confidence is misplaced. Having little experience in something means you should have little confidence in your knowledge of that thing.

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#194

Post by saosebastiao »

codygman wrote: post #158
stared wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Links or it didn't happen. I don't imply that nobody uses it for solving practical problems. Just, I made my judgement based on: - friends (I know, it may be biased), - GitHub codes I use (and in general, popularity), - blog posts on Haskell (I encounter mostly language-oriented; less problem-oriented like "let's make a 3d game", "web scraping", "machine learning", "web dev" etc).

If I took time to link to each one of those would it change your opinion any?

I'm interested. I probably wont ever use Haskell again, but it would be nice to see that there is more to the community than the self-congratulatory cleverness competition that I experienced.

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#195

Post by phamilton »

Dobiasd wrote: post #185
[deleted] wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

(Author here): Yes, the basic intention is to have similar scales on the y axis. But of course it's not to be taken seriously. :)

It was a fun post, I enjoyed it. Thanks!

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#196

Post by kwikiel »

aftabh wrote: post #67
Tehnix wrote: post #36

Does anyone know how the graphs were drawn?

The graphs have been generated using Python's matplotlib[1] 2D plotting library[2]. [1] https://github.com/Dobiasd/articles/blob/master/programming_... [2] http://matplotlib.org/index.html

I love to see PHP vs Haskell debate about productivity while actual work is done in Python.

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#198

Post by RivieraKid »

jimmyhmiller wrote: post #135
RivieraKid wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh ok, I can be wrong about Haskell. BTW, I really like Ceylon, it's very statically safe (more than Haskell I'd say) and very pragmatic (unlike Haskell IMHO, it doesn't seem to focus on maximizing productivity).

Ceylon looks interesting. Mind pointing me to some features you think make it more statically safe than haskell?

I don't know if these are considered static safety features but:

* Statically safe metaprogramming.

* Well designed access rights (private, public).

I also really like the type system, very well designed.

Re: Learning Curves for Different Programming Languages

#199

Post by RivieraKid »

imanaccount247 wrote: post #193
RivieraKid wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know with 100% certainity, but it's a moderately confident conclusion from my little experience.

I am suggesting that your confidence is misplaced. Having little experience in something means you should have little confidence in your knowledge of that thing.

> Having little experience in something means you should have little confidence in your knowledge of that thing.

Not always true, sometimes you can have a fairly good picture of something after a short time.

Post reply on HN