I really want to know where I can find quality programming memes like these. Not just the generic "haha language ___ is bad, nerd" memes.
Why static languages suffer from complexity
11–20 of 306 posts
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#12> I cannot imagine a single language without the if operator, but only a few PLs accommodate full-fledged trait bounds, not to mention pattern matching. This is inconsistency . . . How? > Sometimes, software engineers find their languages too primitive to express their ideas even in dynamic code. But they do not give up . . . Is this a failure of the language, or a failure of the engineer? > If we make our languages…
> > I cannot imagine a single language without the if operator…
Production languages (like prolog or make) don’t need an if statement or operator as selection is implicit when a production matches.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#13So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing:
def foo(bar, baz):
bar(baz)
...
grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.py
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#14So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing: def foo(bar, baz): bar(baz) ... What the heck is 'bar' and 'baz'? I deduce no more than 'bar' can be called with a single 'baz'. I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz to figure out what is going on because everything is dynamically determined at runtime, and even grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.p…
The real power of dynamic languages is being able to do:
const foo = JSON.parse(arbitraryJsonString);
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#15I dislike the phrase 'dynamic language' and especially dislike the phrase 'static language'. We should say 'dynamically typed' or 'statically typed', because 'static' languages are the site of major dynamism.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#16> I cannot imagine a single language without the if operator, but only a few PLs accommodate full-fledged trait bounds, not to mention pattern matching. This is inconsistency . . . How? > Sometimes, software engineers find their languages too primitive to express their ideas even in dynamic code. But they do not give up . . . Is this a failure of the language, or a failure of the engineer? > If we make our languages…
> > I cannot imagine a single language without the if operator… Production languages (like prolog or make) don’t need an if statement or operator as selection is implicit when a production matches.
Shader languages are also hellbent on avoiding branches too so if is frowned upon and often not used. I could easily imagine not having it in a shader language.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#17So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing: def foo(bar, baz): bar(baz) ... What the heck is 'bar' and 'baz'? I deduce no more than 'bar' can be called with a single 'baz'. I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz to figure out what is going on because everything is dynamically determined at runtime, and even grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.p…
> I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz
I use "Find Usages" on foo to see where it is used. Once you see where it is used, you know what the types can be. It's not great, but it's also something that can be progressively remedied.
In the event that the function is not as trivial as your example suggests, the author should have written a docstring to help you understand what it is trying to do, in addition to type annotations that will make it more readable.
In this example, bar can either be a function, a class, or any object with __call__(), so the type information is less important in this case, than actual docstrings that express intent.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#18So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing: def foo(bar, baz): bar(baz) ... What the heck is 'bar' and 'baz'? I deduce no more than 'bar' can be called with a single 'baz'. I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz to figure out what is going on because everything is dynamically determined at runtime, and even grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.p…
The real power of dynamic languages is being able to do: const foo = JSON.parse(arbitraryJsonString); and not having to worry about the structure up front.
What's 'foo' and what you can do with it?
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#19So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing: def foo(bar, baz): bar(baz) ... What the heck is 'bar' and 'baz'? I deduce no more than 'bar' can be called with a single 'baz'. I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz to figure out what is going on because everything is dynamically determined at runtime, and even grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.p…
The real power of dynamic languages is being able to do: const foo = JSON.parse(arbitraryJsonString); and not having to worry about the structure up front.
Structure is a virtue, not a vice. By doing this you're subverting your own interests.
Re: Why static languages suffer from complexity
#20So whenever I have to study someone else's 'dynamic' python I encounter this sort of thing: def foo(bar, baz): bar(baz) ... What the heck is 'bar' and 'baz'? I deduce no more than 'bar' can be called with a single 'baz'. I can't use my editor/IDE to "go to definition" of bar/baz to figure out what is going on because everything is dynamically determined at runtime, and even grep -ri '\(foo\|bar\|baz\)' --include \*.p…
In Clojure, I tend to put pre and post assertions on most of my functions, which is useful for checking errors in the schema of runtime data (very useful when dealing with 3rd party APIs) but it also offers the documentation that you are seeking:
(defn advisories
[config]
{:pre [
(map? config)
(:download-advisories-dir config)
]
:post [
(map? %)
]
}
(let [
dir (:download-advisories-dir config)
]
;; more code here