31–40 of 539 posts
I like this article but oh man dates just trigger me. Such a missed opportunity to use an unambiguous date example like 2001-08-13
> Instead of writing 10000500, you can write 10_000_500, or 1_00_00_500 if you’re Indian. I hate this so much. It means I can't grep for a constant.
You'll also be able to give these constants semantically significant names, and comment next to them providing derivations or citations. And of course, if it's a mistaken or outdated value, you can change it one place and apply it everywhere.
Consider that, if you were debugging a problem with this constant, and the problem was caused by someone having made a typo in one of it's usages (eg having typed 1000500 instead of 10000500, a mistake that's more difficult to make of you have better ways to format numbers [did you have to look back and forth to find the mistake? I did]) - your regex would fail to find it, even if there were no ambiguity about the format it was written in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many languages support kebab case with any Unicode dash that isn't the ASCII one? :)
At the moment, the only one I know for sure is Agda. I suspect java would work as well, not sure about golang unicode var naming.
But then the spec[1] says that only code points characterised as "Letter", an underscore, or characterised as "Number, decimal digit" are valid.
> You can write # 2001-08-12 # to mean the date 2001-08-12, instead of writing something annoying like Date(2001, 8, 12) I like this article but oh man dates just trigger me. Such a missed opportunity to use an unambiguous date example like 2001-08-13
After having discovered Zig, I've been missing that feature in every other language.
I really liked the postfix and prefix notation in Mathematica. These three all mean the same: f[x] f@x x // f It matches the flow of thought more naturally when hammering out a couple of one-liners.
How is that third one readable at all? I’d assume it meant integer division.
Great, introduce slang to languages, what could go wrong?
Clojure’s loop expression hits this spot for me. It sets a recursion point to which you can jump using any logic inside the body you want, as long as it is from tail position. It’s like a while loop turned into an expression. I haven’t encountered any other way to write iterative expressions whose number of iterations isn’t known at the top (like map and reduce).
`unfold`, Rust's `loop`, generators, working tail recursion elimination (the lack of which loop/recur is a workaround for)
> Instead of writing 10000500, you can write 10_000_500, or 1_00_00_500
https://ghc.gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/doc/users_guide/exts/nume...
> Balanced string literals
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/raw-strings-qq-1.1/docs/...
> Generalized update syntax
Use Lens. `fileName %~ max 2`
> you can write the sequence 1, 2, … n-1 as 1..Yup. `[1,2..n-1]` There's far more to it, you have access almost a SQL-like sublanguage.
> Symbols
In Haskell you use hash has a prefix instead of colon.
Haskell sadly does not do automatic lifting, no extended parameter blocks, and no kebab-case.