Go has absolutely no claim to being C's successor. It is useless for all the things it makes sense to use C for. That's why it has attracted virtually no C programmers. Go is python's successor if user influx is anything to judge by.
That's a fair argument. Neither Golang nor D give you the control that C gives you. If that's your yardstick, then the only viable candidate at this point is Rust. But Rust doesn't feel or look anything like C, but more like C++ or maybe Scala.
Its not just the lack of control, the bigger problem is features that have been added in. There major use cases for C that go by its nature can not fill. It can not do bare metal programming or real time applications without major changes to the language standard. Go aims to be a superior system programming language than C but not a successor to C. No one will be doing audio codecs or device drivers in go, but I would consider it over C for a greenfield system daemon.
>Individual agency en masse should be a random distribution
What are you basing that assumption on? You are 100% certain that there is no possible way that men and women could have different preferences, priorities or interests?
Why would they be statistically identical? I'm pretty sure I gave a specific example of how this wasn't true. Did you miss English class in addition to math class?
You explicitly stated that any variation from a random distribution must be due to factors other than individual agency. But of course, you know that. How does someone whose posting history is almost entirely blatant trolling like that not manage to get banned more frequently?
So live in Mississauga? It is the nicest place anywhere near Toronto anyways. Also you missed Toronto itself which has tons of tech jobs, and richmond hill/markham which absolutely dwarfs Waterloo's imaginary tech industry.
I'm always baffled by these kinds of statements. I learned ocaml first, so haskell wasn't too big a leap for me. But I did get to watch my wife go through the process of learning haskell, and she didn't have any more problems than learning any other language.
My wife is a web designer. She has no interest in programming. She taught herself PHP and javascript because she needed to use them. When she finally got to the point where she couldn't tolerate PHP's shittiness anymore, she asked me what she should use instead. I said "scala is a good choice, or you could just skip a step and go straight to haskell". She tried both, decided on haskell because she didn't like lift or play, and proceeded to teach herself haskell. She has never read real world haskell, or even learn you a haskell. I just asked her what a monad is: "Beats me, just use do and the arrow things". She's already finished two big websites written in haskell. This idea that you need to be a compsci phd or something to use haskell is simply not reality.
> This idea that you need to be a compsci phd or something to use haskell is simply not reality.
The fact that there is so much maths talk surrounding Haskell really doesn't help. And I've watched many, many discussions about Haskell go into deep arguments about category theory. I want to write a program, not write a computer science paper.
>The fact that there is so much maths talk surrounding Haskell really doesn't help
Nor does it hurt. It only provides something for people to point to while they say "look, people are talking about something I am not interested in, therefore haskell is too hard and I shouldn't bother trying".
>And I've watched many, many discussions about Haskell go into deep arguments about category theory
You are not required to participate in any discussions you don't want to participate in.
>I want to write a program
So do it? The whole point of my post is that it is perfectly simple to do so. If a non-programmer can teach herself haskell and be productive with it, there's no reason a programmer can't.
A huge part of a programming language is, in fact, its community. I'd say that's more important than the language itself; any given feature can and will be replicated, but the community cannot be.
I cannot get the maximum out of Haskell if I cannot get involved in its community, which is heavily CS-oriented.
Have you interacted with the Haskell community? The Haskell community is made up of individuals who come to Haskell from a variety of different backgrounds. Yes there are a lot of Computer Scientists using Haskell, but not all of us are programming languages PhDs. There are people who are interested in designing hardware and build HDLs in Haskell. There are others who use it for its correctness and performance characteristics when building large scale systems. Some are just doing web development. The community is probably one of the most helpful and friendly as well. The people in the IRC channel are always ready to help and encourage new comers with resources and advice. I have had a much better experience in #haskell them I ever had in #ruby, and usually the explanations are correct and clear.
The thing is, I can write a program in any language. The reason for learning a new language would be to learn a new way of thinking, to "get the maximum out of it". If I can't get involved in its community, I can't do that properly.
If you don't want to learn haskell then don't. It is the weird insistence on making up ridiculous excuses that I have a problem with. Making up a strawman version of "the haskell community" is entirely unnecessary. Once again, a web designer with no CS education of any sort can do it without any problems at all. Your excuse is obviously baloney.
I have "tried it & stopped". I only tried it to check out webmachine, which appears to the be only web framework in existence that is not stupid and terrible. I stopped because I was done trying webmachine, and went back to my normal language that is much nicer than erlang (haskell).
I don't think my experience with erlang has anything to do with the reasons it isn't more popular though. The biggest thing I see is the lack of module/library/package management. CPAN was a big deal. It is now expected that every language have their own CPAN. I think the lack of one is a huge problem for any language, erlang being a good example. I think it is also a big reason that ocaml and haskell went from being "ocaml is the more commonly used one" to "haskell has ten times the userbase of ocaml".
I agree. For instance, Common Lisp is much nicer for me to use now that we have Quicklisp. You can start playing with any common library with a single REPL call.
"Programmers waste enormous amounts of time thinking about, or worrying about, the speed of noncritical parts of their programs, and these attempts at efficiency actually have a strong negative impact when debugging and maintenance are considered. We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%." --Donald Knuth
Except using indexes is a major part of developing for a database. In many simple schemas, performance will completely break down without proper indexing. That's a bit different than spending time investigating if for-each is faster than a traditional loop.
My exception was to the idea of this being a premature optimization (sorry, I probably should've replied directly to your comment with the CSS example)
I am aware of that quote. And that is precisely my point, he is talking about premature optimization, not optimization. What could possibly make you think that the questions in this quiz are examples of premature optimization?
>Honestly, if your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless.
Really? If you don't randomly flit from fad to fad you are "doing the wrong thing"? What if I made a good choice 15 years ago? Should I have stopped using postgresql simply because I chose it so long ago?
Really? If you don't randomly flit from fad to fad you are "doing the wrong thing"?
That wasn't what I suggested at all. My point is that you shouldn't be so focused on one language that you can program in that and that only. Even just being bilingual is a massive step forwards in overall programming skills rather than ASP.NET skills, or PHP skills, or...
Obviously I can't tell what you meant to say, but it is what you did say. "If your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless". My thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today. You explicitly said I am "doing the wrong thing". I believe that is incorrect.
38.2% of people got 4/5 or 5/5 questions right. That is amazing. I never would have guessed anywhere even close to that. I would have figured it would be around 15% or so given that guessing randomly would put it at 12.5%. I guess I get a skewed perspective from looking at applicants since presumably most of those 38% are happy with their current jobs.
I took the test twice so I'm guilty of skewing the stats. My reasoning - first time I got 4/5 and it told me 'you know a little bit about SQL performance tuning.' I was curious about what the 5/5 message would be. It's interesting on many levels that the message was the same.
Because delusional people still didn't learn their lesson from the first bubble.
>Do you have any evidence of this
Their P/E is 112. That's the very definition of overvalued. The price of their stock makes the company worth far more than they earn. If you purchased facebook, it would take you 112 years to break even on that "investment" at their current earning rate.
Consensus analyst 12 month estimate (Feb 15th) is Hi: $82, Lo:$24, Mean: $70. So basically, consensus growth on the year in the stock price is 3%. Compare that to a market of 32% last year. Does not look like the analysts think FB is going to grow much. It's going to take a while to grow into that valuation.
But it in no way ensures they stay relevant. It is literally just blindly flailing around buying anything that gets a lot of users out of fear and having no idea how to maintain their position.
>It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform.
I don't see any evidence to support that claim. It is a different strategy, but I don't see any indication that it is better. Flushing a few billion dollars down the toilet is a different strategy too, but that doesn't make it better.
