You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] 16423536? ago 

as elegant to do

oh dear lord , ur a python programmer arent you.

this "elegance" is completely subjective. At its best it boils down to doing the same thing with less key strokes. In the end this all gets encapsulated anyways. You create and API that is elegant under the hood, I create and API that is "messy" under the hood. At the end of the day our interfaces are the same, this elegance means little.

At worst this elegance is used by engineers with extreme speciality in a particular language to implement something it a very specific unique way to try to squeeze as much logic in the smallest space and gain very little performance boosts in exchange for creating some very unique code that is difficult to maintain. We call this over engineering.

Get this vocabulary out of your head. An engineer does care about elegance. A good engineer cares about:

1) functionality

2) maintainability

3) performance

yes some programs adhere to special contexts by default (GO and parallel programming, Erlang and fault tollerance) but all programming languages can create interfaces, apis to makes

these tasks just as easy.

Because they are turning complete. Fuck your elegance, get the job done with the tool you know.

Turing completeness is overrated

you understand that this statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance

Fucking shitty hipster programmers that only know javascript

0
0

[–] 16439451? ago 

ur a python programmer arent you

Nope. I do most of my programming in Idris at the moment.

this "elegance" is completely subjective

sure

You create and API that is elegant under the hood, I create and API that is "messy" under the hood. At the end of the day our interfaces are the same, this elegance means little.

Well the problem isn't what happens under the hood. If your language is unable to make the concept clean over the hood, then we have reached a problem.

An engineer does[n't] care about elegance

I'm an academic, not an engineer.

you understand that this statement makes no sense and shows your ignorance

It does make sense. Idris let's me optionally sacrifice Turing completeness to be able to ensure that functions that I write will indeed terminate. You can also utilize the categorical dual of that and get the guarantee that you program will always be productive. I care about solving the problem. Whether or not I do so via methods that are Turing complete or not are besides the point.

>>12729743

So you are saying that to make an abstraction in C, you need to build a new programming language over it. I hope you can see how that is a very poor solution to the problem of wanting to create an abstraction.

>>12731520

PHP

PHP is literally jewish.

0
0

[–] 16439453? ago 

PHP is literally jewish.

Every php programmer has seen this syntax error.

0
0

[–] 16424307? ago 

when you get paid 200k to do nothing except fix and sort through all the spaghetti code of Pajeets

They may be taking jobs in the sector but they sure are good at creating others with their incompetence lulz

>>12729742

Fuck that, there needs to be laws and standardisation on requirements for coding. Only the cleanest looking languages permitted. Anything less is simply a street shitting expression in code.

0
0

[–] 16424308? ago 

They tried that once, the result is called Ada. It's terribly bad and does nothing to enforce clean code or reasonable sense. We'd be better off sticking with Java. But the best would be something like Genera Lisp or Smalltalk, make the language and the environment one big thing and have it all be image based. Or just go full FORTH.