• 1 Post
  • 194 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
Cake day: June 12th, 2023
  • tyler@programming.devtoProgramming@programming.dev•i'm just having fun
    13·
    2 days ago

    I think this article might miss some of what people are saying. I’m pretty dang smart. I am just like this person, I go deep into topics and learn about them and am an expert at very specific things. But the speed at which you learn, and the speed at which you can recall those things, and the speed at which you can then utilize those things without making mistakes is what differentiates us.

    I’m sure this person that wrote the article is smarter than me. It doesn’t mean I couldn’t accomplish the same things they do, it would just take longer, take more concentration, and have many more errors along the way.

  • tyler@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•You can pry pattern matching from my cold dead hands
    2·
    12 days ago

    I’m not saying I don’t understand them. I’m saying the syntax is terrible. Compare it to Ruby (or any other modern language) and it’s abundantly clear.

    python (uses syntax not available in any other top 25 language)

    print([j**2 for j in [2, 3, 4, 5]]) # => [4, 9, 16, 25]

    ruby (normal chain syntax with map)

    puts [2, 3, 4, 5].map{|j| j**2}

    even kotlin is more readable, even though you have to convert to a double and back kotlin

    val list = listOf(1,2,3,4)
println(list.map{it.toDouble().pow(2.0).toInt()})

    For nested cases it’s even more apparent:

    python

    digits = [1, 2, 3]
chars = ['a', 'b', 'c']    
print([str(d)+ch for d in digits for ch in chars if d >= 2 if ch == 'a'])    
# => ['2a', '3a']

    ruby

    digits = [1, 2, 3]
chars = ['a', 'b', 'c']   
digits.product(chars).select{ |d, ch| d >= 2 && ch == 'a' }.map(&:join)

    kotlin

    val digits = listOf(1, 2, 3)
val chars = listOf('a', 'b', 'c')
println(digits.flatMap { d ->
    chars.filter { ch -> d >= 2 && ch == 'a' }.map { ch -> "${d}${ch}" }})

    just from a base level, you have to read the middle of the comprehension first, then the end, then the beginning. It’s a completely backwards way to write and read code. unlike other languages that use a ‘functional’ approach, where it’s chained methods or pipes, etc. Even Elixir, which does have list comprehensions, reads and writes in the proper order:

    elixir

    for x <- 0..100, x * x > 3, do: x * 2
  • tyler@programming.devtoProgrammer Humor@programming.dev•Free software has some glib naming conventions
    2·
    13 days ago

    Sure but only because I’m old enough to understand that. It still would have zero meaning for anyone under 25-30. Like someone else said, multiplex only makes sense if you’re over 40 (which I’m not). So literally in 10 years you can go through two different naming conventions and have literally the next generation not know what you are talking about

    Only choosing meaningful names really doesn’t work anymore. Stuff moves too fast, language moves too fast, and things change constantly.

  • tyler@programming.devtoLinux@programming.dev•Tips/Resources on the Shell.
    3·
    19 days ago

    For anyone coming later, I’d actually add a section between where you explain commands for the first time and where you explain their flags or at minimum directly after the flag section. The section should explain how commands are found, how the PATH works and where the majority of binaries on a Linux system are located. Knowing that will allow a reader to immediately understand how simple a shell is and how people are always able to write their own scripts for stuff.