 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
understand her, but it's a lot of fun.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tim Attwood wrote:
> Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
> that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
> understand her, but it's a lot of fun.
Dude, what the HELL...?? o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> One of the better ones I've seen.
>
> http://web.mit.edu/~axch/www/writing_rant.html
The one for C++ seems about right. All the others don't match my
experience at all. (E.g., since when does Java "always get the job done
eventually"? I've lost count of the number of programs I was unable to
finish because Java just makes it too difficult, lacks the necessary
feature, or the spec sheet says the feature exists but it's not actually
implemented!)
I'd say that Perl is like a tool that somebody wrote to solve the one
particular problem they were trying to solve that day, and then tried to
claim it was a general-purpose tool. It makes a small class of problems
really easy to solve, and everything else almost impossible. The whole
thing seems to be a steaming pile of ad hoc solutions with no unifying
form or structure. Kind of like learning English, but harder.
I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of
all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started
reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me off.
And the ham.)
So anyway, since I'm sure you're all expecting it anyway... I'd say that
coding in Haskell is like doing highschool algebra. (In more ways than
one.) At first it seems weird and complicated. And then, assuming you
"get it", it suddenly seems really simple and easy and "obvious". And
then as you try to tackle harder problems, it starts seeming difficult
again...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It's funny how everybody keeps repeating the same mantras about C++,
> yet I don't experience them myself. It must be a different C++.
It seems to me that C++ is a language designed for experts. If you're a
C++ expert, it works very well. If you're a clueless newbie, it works...
not so well.
Still, at least it's better than C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> > And it's not like gcc didn't have similar-sounding error messages:
> > error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of 'x' with no type
> I've gotten a few of those and not understood them, actually. I don't
> remember what I had, but having something more along the lines of "you
> forgot an #include" would be a better error message, I think. :-)
You can get that one if you write eg. "static x;"
It should be rather clear: You have defined a static variable named 'x',
but with no type. (In C it would default to int, but the C++ standard forbids
omitting the type, which is what the error message is saying.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Tim Attwood" <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote in message
news:4b878b55$1@news.povray.org...
> Coding in Haskell is like having sex with a girl
> that wears horn rimmed glasses, you'll never quite
> understand her, but it's a lot of fun.
Coding in SNOBOL is like writing a phone book because... well, because that
was all it was ever used for.
--
Jack
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Makes sense. I think the runtime code generation was what I was
> particularly interested in,
Huh. That's one part I don't think changed that much. The code generation
is used by the compiler(s) as well as in various places in the libraries.
(For example, regular expressions compile down to IL and then native code if
you set the flag.)
The other one is the LINQ thing, where you can set a flag that says "give me
this expression as a parse tree rather than generating code", but that's
limited to LINQ so far.
It's the "Reflection.Emit" namespace you want.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It should be rather clear: You have defined a static variable named 'x',
> but with no type. (In C it would default to int, but the C++ standard forbids
> omitting the type, which is what the error message is saying.)
Ah, I see. Yes. A similar thing, that. I think I got it because the
47K-long compile line was missing one of the -D instructions that would have
made
static UINT32 x;
into a valid declaration or something. Which is why looking at it, it made
no sense, and I couldn't find the header file that defined it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Still, at least it's better than C.
Well, it's better than C for experts. For newbies, I think C is probably
easier, since there's less magic going on you need to know.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I'd say that Perl is like
PHP is exactly this, yes.
> I'm not familiar with Ruby, Scheme, or Mozart. Of course I've heard of
> all these things, but I don't know anything about them. (I started
> reading a Ruby tutorial, but the random inconsistant syntax put me off.
> And the ham.)
Yep. And the fact that the guy who wrote the most definitive texts doesn't
actually know what the language does. (At several points in the Axe book,
the author says "It seems to do this" or "it apparently does that.") And the
fact that between minor version 18 and minor version 19 they made a bunch of
unneccesary and seemingly trivial changes to defaults that would
nevertheless break any program that relied on those defaults. Those are the
main reasons I never really pursued it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The question in today's corporate environment is not
so much "what color is your parachute?" as it is
"what color is your nose?"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
