Pixie: A sweet Clojure-ish language

Post by wz1000 » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #72

wz1000 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of what you said, but > Lastly, types only give you a single dimension of safety. Dependent types can express a huge number of things, and are often limited only by your ability to describe what exactly you want.

Do you use a dependently typed language in production?

Post by warfangle » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 5:40 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #86

davexunit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great quote. This idea is still not too popular, unfortunately. There are a lot of folks out there that get real mad when configuration is code. Notably, sysadmins that feel forced to learn Clojure or to configure an application. "Why not XML or JSON?", they say.

It really depends on the environment and culture. In Python web apps for example it's very popular to keep project configuration in Python dicts and lists, which are just Python code (as opposed to using something like YAML or JSON for config).

Post by hcarvalhoalves » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 5:57 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #86

davexunit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great quote. This idea is still not too popular, unfortunately. There are a lot of folks out there that get real mad when configuration is code. Notably, sysadmins that feel forced to learn Clojure or to configure an application. "Why not XML or JSON?", they say.

It really depends on the environment and culture. In Python web apps for example it's very popular to keep project configuration in Python dicts and lists, which are just Python code (as opposed to using something like YAML or JSON for config).

Post by ajuc » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 6:40 PM UTC

virmundi wrote: post #88

ajuc wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you run a simple java app without dependencies and only displaying "Hello world" it will run in about 1s on modern hardware. > time for x in $(seq 1 100); do ./helloworld.py ; done real 0m1.240s user 0m0.902s sys 0m0.343s That's reasonably fast. Java for comparison: > time for x in $(seq 1 100); do java Hw; done real 0m4.952s user 0m4.051s sys 0m1.071s And I had to compile java first. Still, I expected worse fro…

Out of curiosity which Java? OpenJDK or Oracle or IBM?

     > java -version
     java version "1.7.0_72"
     Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_72-b14)
     Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 24.72-b04, mixed mode)

Post by innguest » Mon, Mar 09, 2015, 7:07 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #90

innguest wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me about it. First thing I asked when I saw HTML over a decade ago was "Oh so you can close tags out of order?" - "Uhm, no, the last opened tag must be closed first" - "Then why do I need to say its name when closing? There's no ambiguity, it's always 'close the last opened tag', so why say its name again?". Folks at W3C must not know Lisp.

> "Then why do I need to say its name when closing? There's no ambiguity, it's always 'close the last opened tag', so why say its name again?". Folks at W3C must not know Lisp. HTML (well, SGML, in this case) was designed for humans hand-authoring large documents. If your opening tag is a few hundreds lines above the closing tag, a little redundancy is handy. Remember, HTML is a markup format, not a data format. Tags…

  if whatever
    ...
  end # whatever


  (p
    ...(bunch of stuff inside p)...
  ) ; p