1,187 reputation
1923
bio website
location
age
visits member for 3 years, 11 months
seen Nov 20 at 2:28

Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
Also, instead of using Clojure for everything, even things that are expressed more cleanly in more traditional OO syntax, how about using Clojure for the data processing bits where it is cleaner, and using Java or some other OO language for the other bits. Polyglot programming instead of multiparadigm programming with the same language for all parts of the program. (Sort of like how most web applications use SQL and OO for different layers.) ?
Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
I've heard the phrase "OO in the large, FP in the small" somewhere -- I think Michael Feathers quoted it. Meaning, that FP may be good for particular parts of a big program, but in general, it should be OO.
Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
@mikera Thanks for the code example. So players (and their points, positions, etc.) are just dumb data structures nested in a big game state data structure? Doesn't that reduce the encapsulation between players and their behavior and other moving parts of the game?
Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
I'm not sure your opening assertion is true. The root of "most" of the complexities? In the programming I've done or seen, the problem is not so much mutable state as a lack of abstraction and an overabundance of detail through the code.
Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
The link for the Stuart Halloway quote: thinkrelevance.com/blog/2009/08/12/…
Jan
12
comment How would Functional Programming proponents answer this statement in Code Complete?
Yes, you're right. I did assume that Functional Programming favors reusable functions operating on the same simple data structures (lists, trees, maps) over and over & actually claims that this is a selling point over OO. See Stuart Halloway (a Clojure FP proponent) here saying that "the over-specification of data types" is "negative consequence of idiomatic OO style" and favoring conceptualizing an AddressBook as a vector or map instead of a richer OO object with other (non-vectorish & non-maplike) properties and methods.
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
@tdammers Thanks. I've used Synergy for a long time. I have a Synergy t-shirt and I've also donated money to the author.
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Eureka is right! I think maybe I'll try one keyboard + 2 machines + Synergy + three monitors with input switching.
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
It actually took reading your answer for me to realize that my monitors actually have multiple inputs and the ability to switch inputs. Thank you for that.
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
@stijn So you would opt for multiple machines over virtualization of multiple OSes on one machine?
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Thanks. I'll try that. I didn't know that a Hackintosh was "compliant" with the OS X license ... but if you say so :)
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Unfortunately, it's much harder to get OS X to run well under virtualization than directly on the right hardware. And I don't want to use OS X as my main OS.
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Nice perspective. I also like the greater simplicity of dealing with less hardware and cables. I love the term "god box"!
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Good suggestion. Any recommendations for a good KVM?
Nov
29
comment If you develop on multiple operating systems, is it better to have multiple computers + displays?
Thanks for that suggestion. "Seriously" degraded is probably an exaggeration, but when you're running Java and Ruby programs that take 10 seconds to start up natively on a 2.2Ghz system, virtualization seems to wipe out any gain you get from having a faster CPU.
Oct
14
comment Is it a betrayal of user privacy to publish server logs with IP addresses in them?
I don't have one.
Oct
7
comment Is using F# good enough for learning the important functional programming concepts of Haskell?
OK I think I will give Haskell a serious go. I now have a problem I think it will be good to try using Haskell for.
Oct
7
comment Is using F# good enough for learning the important functional programming concepts of Haskell?
I think then that I should just try to find a practical problem I can solve with Haskell on Linux or OS X.
Oct
7
comment Is using F# good enough for learning the important functional programming concepts of Haskell?
If I want to learn .NET programming then, would you say that C# is just as good as F# (and probably easier for me to learn)?
Oct
7
comment Is using F# good enough for learning the important functional programming concepts of Haskell?
I don't need to learn Haskell. Just something different enough from Ruby and JavaScript, which I do a lot of. I tried Clojure for a while, but I just accepted the fact that I can't stand Lisp syntax.