301–310 of 321 posts
Here's a blog post that shows how to make a game out of that madness we have gotten used to thanks to JEE / Spring
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Joel Spolsky all abstractions leak: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.htm...
Does assembly language leak compared to machine code? That is, does mnemonic names for machine code instructions leak?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Scala's capabilities are not really comparable to OCaml, which doesn't even have traits. Yes, it has a bit of everything anyone thought about in FP in it. However you can make use of traits like feature by mixing in modules and objects, while taking advantage of first class modules in OCaml. > JavaScript has many influences beyond Self Sure, but I am unaware of any that make it such a great language.
Scala's OO features are more like Java's done better. OCaml is this weird object system that is structural most of the time sometimes nominative, and then there is that weird ML module system. Ah...I totally forgot about Moby. [1] JavaScript has been very successful, and got a whole generation of programmers playing around with prototypes without knowing it. [1] http://moby.cs.uchicago.edu
JavaScript's success has less to do with how good the language is, rather sharing the same fate as successful systems programming languages, by being the only gate to the kingdom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think D has a completely different of issues starting by a) small community b) reference compiler is not fully free software c) free compiler (ldc) is not finished d) very few people work on both compilers, etc.
IMHO, D is a better teaching language than Python and a better systems language than Java. I wish Android was written in D. I can't enjoy using a language with significant whitespace or extremely forced OOP. The core language is good enough already, and better than most. They way it defines functional purity is the way it will be taught in universities in the future. It also embraces concurrency, and this will only b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once real systems (like UI frameworks) are written with FP, we can compare apples to apples. Until then...wtf? OO actually works well for scaling complexity, much better than toy immutable functions do. Seems like we are working on very different kinds of systems. Right now I'm working on Hadoop-based data pipeline. While Hadoop itself is mostly written in Java, many recent tools like Spark or Kafka are created in…
> Python with its main web framework - Django - is really shiny. I would say, it is one of the best web frameworks ever For small sites, maybe. Once the codebase gets large, it becomes much harder to maintain than a Java webapp of similar complexity written in a sane framework.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I already mentioned why Linux distros build the entire chain from source: they provide support for it, they need to be able to patch it and they can't take responsibility for binaries built in an unknown environment. However, I don't understand why you mix two things: maven concept and design (which is fine) with what I criticized: a build tool that depends on everything that it intends to build in the first…
So Maven is at fault because they prioritise their own development productivity over ..... Linux distributors? Why package Maven anyway? You aren't likely to add much value by doing that.
But not, it is the obsession to turn everything into agnostic "engines" and meta-somethings, where everything is abstracted to the extreme with little value. At the end, Maven implementation using XML, plugins, dependency injection and having a build dependency chain of 100 packages did not prevent them from being kind of stuck in version 3 and slowly abandoned for another tool (gradle), leaving behind the only important value: conventions and the repository concept.
I can build/bootstrap ant and ivy just fine. And I can build almost every package using it by just telling them, don't go to the network, but use the one I already built myself with little effort.
If you ask why maven had to be packaged, mostly because it had to be patched with ugly hacks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strange, since I started using Django a while ago, I would say it encourages me to keep my own code a lot more organized. Are Java frameworks so much different? As for functional programming, I only mix bits and pieces here and there. One thing I find quite discouraging about JavaScript, is that (in the code I have been reading) you can define a function within another function, and pass that on to other parts of the…
You can define functions within the scope of another function in Python as well. It's up to the developer to keep it organized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. Platform stability and limiting complexity is really important in the long run, so (luckily, imho) C++ and Scala are non-starters.
> Exactly. By definition, most developers are mediocre, and thats okay. That doesn't say much. So yes, most developers are average, but what is average? Is it necessarily developers who need training wheels, helmets and elbow pads in order to protect themselves and others? That may be the reality, for all I know. But that isn't necessarily a timeless truth. Take a room of expert programmers; now most of them are medi…
There certainly are huge variations in baseline skill depending on location and line of business.
I was thinking of the more or less generic enterprise software environment in firms whose main business is not software development, and which reside outside silicon valley or other tech hubs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Maven is at fault because they prioritise their own development productivity over ..... Linux distributors? Why package Maven anyway? You aren't likely to add much value by doing that.
I think what you call "development productivity" shows exactly the cancer that makes the Java ecosystem a spaguetti of jars (whith some of them being dead projects) instead of a lasagna where you see libraries use only other libraries from the layer "below". But not, it is the obsession to turn everything into agnostic "engines" and meta-somethings, where everything is abstracted to the extreme with little value. At…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree OOP is the correct way of thinking about the real world, and I think the software industry is starting to realize it was an overblown fad too (and moving on to the next fad, of course), BUT... ... I agree Java is not a particularly good example of OOP. It amazes me that so many people complain about Java "forcing OOP on everything". If I read framework source code, I see very little OOP in there. It's most…
If you disagree, would you mind explaining your reasoning? I suspect that we've started hitting the issue of "What, actually, is OOP?"