Bjarne Stroustrup Quotes

Post by tome » Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 8:41 AM UTC

oneofnine wrote: post #168

tome wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was fun watching advocates of complex, abstract Haskell argue against straightforward programming that normal developers can understand I don't think that's what they were arguing against. I think they were arguing against equating straightforward programming with basic language features.

That's true, much of the technical discourse haggled over favorite language features. But that missed the much bigger point: If we use complex, abstract Haskell for practical apps, what are the consequences of alienating the vast majority of professional developers? Unfortunately the answer is clear: Haskell's arcane reputation has solidified.

Post by gautamcgoel » Wed, Nov 29, 2023, 7:23 PM UTC

avgcorrection wrote: post #135

gautamcgoel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for your response. Personally I fall into the "strings are arrays of bytes" camp (which is also shared by Go). A difference between my view and that of the Go designers is that I don't feel that it is important to support Unicode by default and am perfectly happy to assume that every character corresponds to a single byte. Obviously that makes internationalization harder, but the advantage is that strings are…

> Obviously that makes internationalization harder, but the advantage is that strings are much simpler to reason about. Internationalization relative to what? Anyway, just pick any language in the world, i.e. an arbitrary one—can you represent it using just ASCII? If so I would like to know what language that is. It seems that Rotokas can be.[1] That’s about 5K speakers. So you can make computer programs for them. Of…