That’s not realistic or “fair” - most Haskell projects will use a dozen or so extensions easily. GHC has been a platform for language experimentation for a long time; standardisation efforts keep on cropping up in annual surveys. (Eg, swapping in Text for String in base is long overdue, but it’s a hold over from days where FP pedagogy was seen as more important.)
Unfortunately high. It’s the same reason there’s a “space force”. He didn’t know about the coastguard and guessed something else, then doubled down.
That’s a good point. You can get away with that with a new language, but adding nullability as a non-default option would break existing code much like making things const by default in C++ would, I suppose.
Lombok had a bunch of great things that should’ve been part of the java language to begin with. They’ve slowly been folded in (so now you have to work out which @NotNull annotation you want) but the language does still improve.
The issue here is that the author of that post, and potentially the fictional author of the thing being lampooned, are not drawing a distinction between a tutorial (or an explanation) and a how-to.
Either you want to get a task done, or you want to spend a lot longer learning how to work that out for yourself.
(Many tutorials will include small set of how-to-like instructions because emulating the actions of a master will improve one’s vocabulary of what can be done as well as how it is achieved.)
Erlang wasn’t the first implementation of CSP.
Clojure has it’s own set of idioms; it comes with some small surprises for old lisp hands. There are some things it’s really brought into the mainstream: performant persistent data structures in particular.
As well as excellent tooling and pedagogy, the principle attraction of Racket is the macro system. There’s a great book about this (this is true of just about all aspects of Racket). Racket’s focus is on building a tower of languages via macro extension. Metaprogramming is thematically FP-adjacent but neither sufficient or necessary; but if you’re looking for a fun learning experience it’s really worth a look.
In terms of employment opportunities - I know of several Clojure shops (on the JVM it has the bonus of being able to take advantage of the hole ecosystem), but I’m not aware of anywhere that’s using Racket outside of the academic sphere.
Another great avenue into this world is Racket. The tooling is fantastic and the documentation culture is first-class.
I’ve a couple of GP friend who used to describe “Dr Google” as their online colleague.
The point being, they were somewhat trained in interpreting risk as opposed to the stereotypical googler-of-symptoms. Once upon a time search engines were quite useful.
I’d go with Erlang over elixir, but it sounds like you already have an interest in gleam.
FWIW: just pick one and get started. There are some major axes to consider: pure versus impure, lazy versus strict, static versus dynamic typing, but to kick off if you’ve done no FP before it’s probably better to just go for it.
There are some really intriguing “next steps”: SICP, the ML module system, the Haskell ecosystem, the OTP approach to state, but to begin with it’s just worth getting used to some basics.
The neighbours’ seven-year-old suggested using a VPN to get around age checks. I don’t know if he knows what one is, but he’s definitely seen adverts for them.
I kind of expected a lot of this; I remember the sendmail 4 book from back in the day when O’Reilly had that, DNS and BIND, and Perl as the entirety of its corpus.
I’m primarily transfixed, not by the example in your comment, but that you don’t voice the “th” in “with”.
Snowcrash.
I’m surprised their response wasn’t, “you’re all on the side of predators; it’s as simple as that”.
The “satisfaction” is probably novelty. UK/EU, nobody thinks about it.
I think there’s a kind of fetishisation of manual transmission in the US. Like your emergency scenario: I guess if you need to accelerate away from 30-50 feral hogs then you might welcome it.
“Lead with the foot that is going down” is missing from this.
You typically learn to feel the accelerator and brake with one foot but just engage the clutch (ie, all the finesse is letting the clutch out). But you know this. All your muscle memory works like that. When you switch to automatic, just use the one foot and it works much better.
You have probably already worked that out but it’s handy advice if you’re a passenger in an automatic with a first-time driver who is used to manual.
Some of the GoF patterns over-emphasise inheritance, but by-and-large, you don’t build large systems without either using or rediscovering software patterns, whether they’re OO, FP, or what-have-you.
Neither covariant nor contravariant.
supertype[] is not a supertype of subtype[] if supertype and subtype alone are in that relationship, because the mutability of arrays means that the Liskov substitution principle doesn’t hold.
(These are all something you’ll probably find good explanations of on Wikipedia.)