nousernamesleft

Go has absolutely no claim to being C's successor. It is useless for all the things it makes sense to use C for. That's why it has attracted virtually no C programmers. Go is python's successor if user influx is anything to judge by.

You explicitly stated that any variation from a random distribution must be due to factors other than individual agency. But of course, you know that. How does someone whose posting history is almost entirely blatant trolling like that not manage to get banned more frequently?

Shit, I guess I must have been sick the day we covered "men and women are statistically identical in all choices they make". Was that in calculus?

>Individual agency en masse should be a random distribution

What are you basing that assumption on? You are 100% certain that there is no possible way that men and women could have different preferences, priorities or interests?

So live in Mississauga? It is the nicest place anywhere near Toronto anyways. Also you missed Toronto itself which has tons of tech jobs, and richmond hill/markham which absolutely dwarfs Waterloo's imaginary tech industry.

If you don't want to learn haskell then don't. It is the weird insistence on making up ridiculous excuses that I have a problem with. Making up a strawman version of "the haskell community" is entirely unnecessary. Once again, a web designer with no CS education of any sort can do it without any problems at all. Your excuse is obviously baloney.

>The fact that there is so much maths talk surrounding Haskell really doesn't help

Nor does it hurt. It only provides something for people to point to while they say "look, people are talking about something I am not interested in, therefore haskell is too hard and I shouldn't bother trying".

>And I've watched many, many discussions about Haskell go into deep arguments about category theory

You are not required to participate in any discussions you don't want to participate in.

>I want to write a program

So do it? The whole point of my post is that it is perfectly simple to do so. If a non-programmer can teach herself haskell and be productive with it, there's no reason a programmer can't.

I'm always baffled by these kinds of statements. I learned ocaml first, so haskell wasn't too big a leap for me. But I did get to watch my wife go through the process of learning haskell, and she didn't have any more problems than learning any other language.

My wife is a web designer. She has no interest in programming. She taught herself PHP and javascript because she needed to use them. When she finally got to the point where she couldn't tolerate PHP's shittiness anymore, she asked me what she should use instead. I said "scala is a good choice, or you could just skip a step and go straight to haskell". She tried both, decided on haskell because she didn't like lift or play, and proceeded to teach herself haskell. She has never read real world haskell, or even learn you a haskell. I just asked her what a monad is: "Beats me, just use do and the arrow things". She's already finished two big websites written in haskell. This idea that you need to be a compsci phd or something to use haskell is simply not reality.

I have "tried it & stopped". I only tried it to check out webmachine, which appears to the be only web framework in existence that is not stupid and terrible. I stopped because I was done trying webmachine, and went back to my normal language that is much nicer than erlang (haskell).

I don't think my experience with erlang has anything to do with the reasons it isn't more popular though. The biggest thing I see is the lack of module/library/package management. CPAN was a big deal. It is now expected that every language have their own CPAN. I think the lack of one is a huge problem for any language, erlang being a good example. I think it is also a big reason that ocaml and haskell went from being "ocaml is the more commonly used one" to "haskell has ten times the userbase of ocaml".

I am aware of that quote. And that is precisely my point, he is talking about premature optimization, not optimization. What could possibly make you think that the questions in this quiz are examples of premature optimization?

>That wasn't what I suggested at all

Obviously I can't tell what you meant to say, but it is what you did say. "If your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless". My thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today. You explicitly said I am "doing the wrong thing". I believe that is incorrect.