voxcogitatio

I'm glad to hear that they've catched up to the original UNIX. :)

Benjamin Pierce considered troll.

The "You need a PHD to understand Haskell" slur is so bloody ridiculous. I certainly didn't have a problem with it, and I haven't even finished my degree yet! On a more general note, I find the idea that a programming language can be "too smart" troubling. Is the solution to have dumber programming languages then?

Yes, but large projects often need to use recursive makefiles, which are notoriously flaky at detecting what has changed (if anything).

No this is what a GPL developer considers a "loss". Specifically, yet another demonstration of why developing for someone else's walled garden is a bad idea.

I'm not sure that Haskell could, given time, subsume dynamically typed programming. But even if it is possible, why would it be desirable? Most Haskell people don't think very highly of dynamic typing, and the extensions to the language reflect that. They generally add more typing, e.g GADT's, multi-parameter type classes, extensible kinds e.t.c. And dependent typing is certainly not a move towards dynamic typing! Casting it as such shows poor understanding of both concepts.

Icaza has a long history of being a microsoft shill, I can't say I'm suprised to see him leap to his master's defence once again.

The confusion about the use case of NoSQL probably stems from the term "NoSQL" being so vaguely defined. All you can say for sure about one is that it's not relational. But other than that there's not much in common between (for example) key-value stores, graph databases and object databases.

Result: The author has to qualify all statements with "only applies to some NoSQL databases".

Remember, you can also use any language that compiles to Java bytecode on a JVM. A short list includes Scala, Clojure, Ruby, Python, Groovy and even Javascript(via Rhino). So the JVM and Java are very much separate things.

There is also the matter that the whole "correctness vs. productivity" debate is a false opposite. There is nothing mutually contradictive with correctness and productivity, so there is no reason why you can't have both.

Of course human error applies here too; But it's much simpler to get one type right than to use the type in the right way everywhere. Per example: The Red-Black-Tree implementation mentioned in the examples. If we define a tree that cannot be unbalanced, we can skip all explicit checks for whether the tree is balanced, thus eliminating a source for errors (forgetting/bungling the balance checks) and also increasing productivity (since we don't need to write the balance checks in the first place).

It's amusing watching the author use purple prose over a single blinking LED. I bet if Steve Jobs gave him a turd he would describe it as "that which makes the flowers grow, with a heady aroma".

It continues to amaze me how many and adamant apple's apologists are. Stockholm syndrome?