albertoCaroM

Whoa! This is a revelation. I already loved Nix and used nix-shell extensively, but this is the missing piece: fully reproducible Python scripts without compromise.

I loved onivim2

Although the study by Prat et al. (2020) suggests that linguistic aptitude is a better predictor than numeracy for learning programming in Python, it should be read carefully, as it can easily be oversimplified.

To begin with, the study measures functional numeracy: the ability to solve everyday numerical problems. This is quite different from the kind of advanced mathematics often associated with programming, such as formal logic, symbolic abstraction, or the use of formal languages (as found in denotational semantics or type theory).

These more abstract skills—not basic arithmetic—are essential for understanding recursion, type inference, or algorithm design. That functional numeracy has low predictive power in this study does not imply that deep mathematical reasoning is irrelevant to programming.

Moreover, the language used in the study is Python, which was explicitly designed to be readable and semantically close to natural language. This may give an advantage to individuals with strong verbal skills, but the results don’t necessarily generalize to languages like C, Lisp, or Haskell, where symbolic and logical density is much higher.

Finally, language and mathematics are not opposing domains. They share cognitive underpinnings, such as working memory, executive attention, and hierarchical structure processing. The key is not which one "wins," but how they interact and complement each other in different programming contexts.

Is there Asciidoctor tree-sitter grammar? I can't find one.

Hi Mark. I just bought your book in leanpub. I own the book about common lisp and haskell, I find your style very pragmatic succint. Please follow witting books like those.

I agree with you it's a very opinionated article but despite I program every single day on C and C++, I agree with some points he claims. For example, I think the implicit conversions in C++ it's very problematic. Another point is regarding undefined behaviors they still surprise me.

Even I agree with the part in he complains about the size and complexity of the c++ standard.

And the third footnote is simply true.

My complaints are more oriented to C++ than C, often I feel that something went wrong, and we fail to try to reduce the complexity.

When I remember the following quote "A programming language is low level when its programs require attention to the irrelevant." Alan J. Pelis. I always remember modern C++ and I realized how regardless of an apparently simpler syntax, we start to think about l-value, r-value discard, contexpr, we start paying attention to details no related to our original problem.

That's why I feel you are right C++ is a low-level language, but sometimes I feel the modern C++ is not a higher level, but even a lower level.

Sometimes I ask myself if despite the lack of standard library and high-level structures if working with c and Glibc it's higher or lower level, my experience tells me that sometimes I can concentrate better on my problem I try to solve, instead of struggle with the compiler.

I suppose It's joke.

There are countless successful open source projects (libraries , frameworks and languages).

Open source have come to stay, besides, nobody forbidden you to put a price if you have a opensource project and you want to give a premium experience, with extra features, maintenance or even a technical support.

When I read eloquent javascript I thought the are several similitudes between the two books. Maybe you can give it a try.