Those are both valid reasons to use both languages. The "only" (whether true or not) is what the argument hinges on. It is roughly the same as saying that the only advantage of X is that it is popular, but Y is also popular and has additional advantages, therefore, Y is better than X. That is a valid argument, whether the premises are true or not.
I do not disagree but if you are going to say that "X" is only used because of "Y", maybe if you are pitching "Z" instead of "X" do not start with the "Y" :)
It is interesting how accommodations can reveal dysfunctions in educational practice. In my courses, requests for accommodations generally change the course design for all students. This is because the accommodation does not alter expected learning outcomes, but it is clearly something that aids students with difficulty learning the material succeed. My goal is that all students succeed in the expected learning outcomes. I don't want the course to be challenging for the wrong reasons. So often the request reveals something I was doing that is unnecessary and makes the class more difficult for little reason. That isn't to say that there are not learning environment that should add additional stress. Sometimes such conditioning is needed so that one can succeed in the challenges they are being trained for. That isn't the case for my students.
It seems like the central claim of the study is that there is an increased use of center embeddings in legal texts in comparison to non-legal texts and casuals peach. I'm seeing a lot of debating and presentations of opinions about various aspects of legalese in the comments, but the number of center embeddings in a document is measurable, and is in no way associated with clarity, or precision. It is known that beyond one or two center embeddings, most people find a sentence incomprehensible. There is no way that a sentence like "The dog the cat the rat chased ate saw the man wink." is more clear than some semi-paraphrase, which does not use center embeddings, such as "The rat chased the cat who ate the dog who saw the man wink." It seems reasonable that the only explanation the researchers could find for such behavior is that it seemed to have some sociological value in invoking authority. There is no sense in which center embeddings help to avoid lexical ambiguity. They are simply difficult to parse.
I got turned off of F# because it seemed like knowing C# libraries and tooling was assumed if one wanted to do anything non-trivial, kind of like some of the functional JVM languages always assume some amount of Java knowledge and use of Java tooling. F# seemed nice, but it didn't seem like a real stand-alone language. Unlike Elm or Purescript, where one should also know JavaScript and its tooling, I don't find learning all the C# and Java stuff independently compelling enough to use F#, Scala, Frege, etc.
It's a feature but also sort of an anti-feature. To do anything productive you will need to reach for a lot of .NET libraries, and those will force you to write code differently than you would if you could live in blissful pure-F# land. This results in a mishmash of styles.
Something as simple as calling a .NET function that doesn't have F# bindings forces a change (e.g. `someLibraryFunc(arg1, arg2)` instead of `f arg1 arg2`).
This gets worse as libraries force you to instantiate objects just to call methods which could have been static, or use ref parameters, etc.
I say this as somebody who loves F# - you do absolutely have to know .NET style (which really means C# style) in addition to F# style. It's extremely pragmatic if you're already familiar with C#, but I'm not sure how wonderful it is if you come in cold.
I actually like the way F# does refs more! byref<'T> aligns more closely with internal compiler terminology and makes it more clear that this is something like a pointer.
Having to perform tupled calls over curried is indeed an annoyance, and even a bigger one is the prevalent fluent style which results in
Ugh, I usually try to shuffle around what I find annoying into bespoke functions (which are thankfully very easy to define) or even declaring operators. It also helps that while selection is not vast, F# tends to have various libraries that either provide alternatives or wrap existing widely adopted packages into a more functional F#-native API e.g. Oxpecker, Avalonia FuncUI, FSharp.Data, etc.
It is called evidentiality. It doesn't have any direct relationship to time, as one would expect with a tense. Southern Quechua has a reported event evidential affix as well. A friend who is a speaker of Quechua was once horrified, hearing that a man was going to be given a life sentence for murder in Bolivia. They played a portion of his confession over the radio, and the accused man used the reported event evidential through the entirety. Literally, saying that all his words were second hand, dubious information. To my friend, the implication was that he was saying what the police had told him to say. Apparently, those judging the case were not aware of the subtlety, and it did not come through in the Spanish translation of the confession, resulting in a conviction. Whatever the facts of the case were in the end, what is interesting is that for Quechua speakers like my friend, due to the use of the reported event evidential, there was no confession, even though all of the events of a murder were stated in the first person.
It is a tense. It can simultaneously function as a mood, that doesn't change its tense status. It changes the time aspect of a verb. I don't know how more tense you can be than that.
I don't speak Turkish. How would you distinguish e.g. "I heard he went" (inferential past) vs. "I heard he will go" (inferential future)? Is there such a distinction?
It definitely seems misleading to talk about coca leaf use as cocaine use, given the common expectation for what that means. People reading the newspaper probably don't know all these details, and it isn't spelled out. I can't imagine some guy in a club not feeling like he was robbed after paying for a powdery drug and then receiving a handful of leaves. I can't imagine an Andean woman sitting down for morning tea being pleased to have a bunch of powder dumped in her cup.
What's also humorous to me is this entire discussion is centered around vernacular usage of a word versus the scientific definition. Cocaine is cocaine, but "cocaine" means different things to some people and not to others.
Which part is bullshit? The discussion, generally or the pedantic point that the active compound is the same in the various presentations people are arguing about?
I suppose the better term would be synecdoche, since the similarity in pronunciation isn't coincidental, like "The sun rose in the morning." and "Look at the pretty rose petals." but is a form of motivated polysemy.
There is no reason why one has to enjoy a haskell-like syntax over Bourne shell syntax but I think you're wrong about the tool. The author states that "It should have no abstraction capabilities (classes, data types, polymorphic functions, etc.)." Granted, there may be types but without those abstractions, I don't think you need to know much of anything about type theory.
reply