Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)S

soc

@ soc @programming.dev

Posts
25
Comments
115
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Stop Using <> for Generics

    Jump

  • Some functions also don’t have any parentheses, like field access or infix operators.

    You call things the way they were defined. Problem solved.

    I'm kinda confused, because this is the second time now where your attempt at making a counter argument is actively supporting my point. Is this intentional at your part?

    We could follow this line of thinking further ...

    No we don't. If your point relies on Turing-tarpitting the whole discussion ... then you have no point.

  • Library Design: Naming Conventions – Creation

    Jump

  • Thankfully, registration fees do not differ by length of the domain. (As it should be.)

    It cost a larger 3 digit amount of currency to buy it, though. (Which was fine for me.)

  • Why no central script repository?

    Jump

  • Packages are usually provided by distribution packagers, not by the developers of the code itself.

  • Library Design: Naming Conventions – Creation

    Jump

  • This submission reminded me that I also had some articles on this topic that people may find interesting.

  • Stop Using <> for Generics

    Jump

  • That's still a workaround to try and keep a completely artificial distinction alive.

    Even if I didn't need [] for types, I still wouldn't want "some functions use (), some functions use []" as a language rule.

  • Naming conventions in programming – a review of scientific literature [and tips on how to do it well]

    Jump

  • Oh, good idea ... any preference on the first? :-)

  • Naming conventions in programming – a review of scientific literature [and tips on how to do it well]

    Jump

  • Stop Using <> for Generics

    Jump

  • Wasting a perfectly good pair of brackets on some random function call and then suffering for it in many other places sounds more like syntactic salt.

  • Stop Using <> for Generics

    Jump

  • What's a form of access but a function from some index type to some element type?

  • PNG is back!

    Jump

  • Happily using it for presentation slides.

  • Stop Using <> for Generics

    Jump

  • If you read more than just the headings, you'd find out that your objections have been addressed in the article. ;-)

  • Unified Condition Expressions

    Jump

  • Sure, there are some worse/more limited predecessors – my design was partially motivated by a desire to improve upon these.

    For instance, that ML-derivative you are using for your examples

    • very likely still has if then else in the language, thus making it not unified
    • desperately tries to emulate functionality with guards that simply comes out of the box with my approach
    • relies on the ultimate hack of "match on unit", because match is very limited in which coding patterns it can express

    Also, none of the examples are "more clear" or "have less magic":Maybe they are more "familiar" to you personally, but that's about it.

    Too me they just look clunky, full of accidental complexity and trying to work around a poor/limited language design.

  • Linus Torvalds Expresses His Hatred For Case-Insensitive File-Systems

    Jump

  • That –at best– gives you the same performance.

    EDIT: Ok, I misunderstood – you meant the performance of "case insensitive in kernel" vs. "case insensitive in userspace". I get your point now.

  • Linus Torvalds Expresses His Hatred For Case-Insensitive File-Systems

    Jump

  • How would that happen?