171–180 of 459 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also VB 6 syntax was complete shit.
Pretty much any old language has an odd and inconsistent syntax. I am getting into python now and it feels so much like doing VBA.
I wonder how much of global warming is caused by inefficient code written in higher level languages requiring more powerful hardware to run. It might be infinitesimal but still non-zero.
I could well be wrong but I thought with an interpreted language it would be very hard to protect against timing attacks?
Wouldn't a lot of the network communication also be utilising compiled libraries?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I threw billions of dollars of vested interest at Python/Ruby/COBOL/(insert language of your choice) we can probably make those run at JS speeds as well. Does that solve the fundamental drawbacks of the languages? Nope. No it does not. JavaScript is particularly egregious because of it's weird behaviour about types and coercion and you know, just silently failing, behaviour that I wouldn't want going on in any pro…
every dynamically-typed language has "weird" behaviour around type coercion, that's simply the nature of the beast. sure wish i knew what you are talking about w/r/t "silently failing". JS has working exceptions just like 99% of widely used languages. I'm very glad that you've been omniscient enough to determine what "proper" parallel support is, though. How's that working out for you? Meanwhile, those of us using Ja…
Do they now?
$ irb
irb(main):001:0> "0" + 1
TypeError: no implicit conversion of Fixnum into String
from (irb):1:in `+'
from (irb):1
from /usr/bin/irb:11:in `'
irb(main):002:0> ^D
$ python
>>> "0" + 1
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "", line 1, in
TypeError: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'int' objects
>>> ^D
$ node
> "0" + 1
'01'
If you never worry about those things, then you're either not sharing any resources at all (in which case threads are also dead easy), or you're failing to deal with the shared resources properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (4x slower, perhaps) "4x" is a lot slower, and a lot of things are much worse than this. You have to have deep knowledge of the VM (such as knowing how "hidden classes" work in V8) to be able to get JS close to Java. > so I'll disregard that. You shouldn't. Claiming a JIT'ed language is fast due to being faster than Python, an entirely interpreted language, is like saying a moped is a fast vehicle because it's fast…
>Most language features, really. Name a few. >terrible "prototype" system >malice that is "this" It sounds like you are talking about ES5, not ES6+
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"There are only two kinds of file systems. Those that corrupt your data eventually and those nobody uses." Luckily, filesystem designers worked hard at making their filesystems journaling, fault tolerant, and more. And we stopped complaining angrily about filesystems ruining weeks (or months) of work, because it stopped being a regular occurrence. We still complain about the flaws of C++ because they are a constant s…
I don't think he's saying the criticisms are invalid, but just that they are at the forefront of more people's minds because the respective language is more prevalent. Languages that are barely used also have their problems - they are just undiscovered or spoken about less.
No. Stroustrup uses his snarky retort to deflect criticism. When C++ is criticized by (academic) language designers, his comment reads as "and yet people use my language and not yours". And that's pretty immature.
Popular tools have to meet a high quality standard because every wart in the language affects millions of people.
Why not C#? Seems a bit of a missed opportunity to feed some of the APIs undoubtedly created for this into the new .net core stuff. I guess i'll just keep dreaming of the day when i can reliably convert a docx into a pdf without using office interop.
This is the confusing part for me, yes. Javascript is fine and well, but C# seems the better choice in general here.
Hi there, original tweeter here. Just to clarify: no one said when this work would land, simply that we are working on it! Sorry to disappoint XD, but I guess blame the OP.