Reputation
2,958
Next privilege 3,000 Rep.
Cast close & reopen votes
Badges
1 18 28
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~132k people reached

  • 0 posts edited
  • 0 helpful flags
  • 2,154 votes cast
Jan
30
awarded  Yearling
Nov
17
awarded  Taxonomist
Nov
16
awarded  Notable Question
Aug
18
comment Are Git branches, in fact, “homeomorphic endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space”?
Actually the mathematical jargon is not more abstract. (Endo)functors and monoids are rather common mathematical objects, monads are essentially unknown among mathematicians, they seem to be much more common among programmers
Aug
9
awarded  Necromancer
Apr
23
awarded  Nice Question
Apr
7
awarded  Good Answer
Mar
9
awarded  Autobiographer
Feb
27
accepted OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Feb
27
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Thank you, great answer!
Feb
26
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Thank you, I will have a look at the links, but I am not really asking whether those opinions are justified. I am asking whether the facts still hold. For instance: is there a way to print out any algebraic data type? Is it still accurate that integers overflow without warnings? Is there today a way to operate on file and dispose them without having to write every time the boilerplate to deal with closing files on errors?
Feb
26
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Are you really suggesting that I ask a dozen separate questions?
Feb
26
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Well, they do not look like this to me. Integer overflow checks, object printing, module immutablity, warnings on name shadowing... They all seem pretty general points to me, nothing related to Lisp. (And neither Python, Haskell nor Factor have integer overflows, and they are not Lisps either)
Feb
26
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
And, by the way, I think people should be given the benefit of doubt when asking sensible questions. Maybe ask for clarification or better wording, rather than closing the question in a few minutes
Feb
26
revised OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
added 262 characters in body
Feb
26
comment OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Well, I am not asking whether the opinion is valid, or sensible. I am asking this literally: are the bullet points still true in OCaml today, or have things changed since then. I think this has not much to do with discussion, I am looking for factual information, such as - say - "in version 4, one can print any object for debug"
Feb
26
asked OCaml criticism: is it still valid?
Feb
18
comment Is jQuery an example of “god object” antipattern?
Yes (12 more characters to go...)
Jan
30
awarded  Yearling
Jan
27
awarded  Popular Question