mbwgh

> I'm only a hobby programmer and the experience wasn't encouraging.

I have come across elitist communities like on SO, also regarding C++. I was downvoted and told to intentionally be spreading misinformation by using the word 'struct', because as you should know, in C++ there are only classes... I haven't encountered that kind of vitriol when I asked beginner questions about how loops work, on 4chan out of all places.

But there were also times where I spent hours with people chatting on IRC while learning, where people were forgiving and encouraging.

In both places however, it seemed to be unfathomable for people that someone was trying to learn to program, not because they had to because of school or uni.

Thus forcing a subpar default on everybody intentionally.

You are absolutely correct and I was an idiot without a proper understanding of premature abstraction or unnecessary complexity.

If I were to start a new side-project using Haskell today (I probably won't), I would just stick to do-notation and even concrete types (instead of mtl-style or what have you) where possible.

Not me, because I hate change!

Yes? And the submission leads to twitter, which blocks FF deliberately, so what's your point?

I like the sentiment, but the article ignores that this approach may incur the price of adding complexity to the implementation. Depending on your architectural constraints, adding an undo operation may not only be hard, it may necessitate changes which in turn make future changes harder as well. Or it may not, of course - as usual it depends.

But even assuming that you are able to follow this advice, I assume (and have personally witnessed) another side-effect. Just as people get accustomed to, and ignore, warnings, they will just as well become accustomed to being able to undo mistakes, and as a consequence become less careful about what they're doing.

One may argue that reserving warnings for only the non-undoable operations will improve their signal-to-noise-ratio and compensate for an overall gain, but whether that is true and worth the additional complexity is not black-and-white.

Elon is it you?

In Ousterhout's "A philosophy of software design", this aspect is described similarly via "deep classes", as opposed to "shallow classes".

Is this different/better than using `instanceof`?

Thanks. I believe with the additional null checks, this version is safer to use, too!

It's likely dependent on the 'user archetype'. If you need to e.g. lookup things related to beginner-friendly programming languages, the search results for Google are strongly tainted with SEO crap.

Being able to either outright block/pin sites, or only lower/raise them in your search results, made a difference for me after a few days of searching.

I do hope the future of search will include being able to use natural language, but also still the more precise '"This" +"That"'.

In any case, more competition is a good thing, the lack of it is what got us into this mess in the first place.

I was going to say that, then I noticed people are arguing about the "number of 9s of availability". You guys have WHAT?