2,792 reputation
11428
bio website andreaferretti.it
location Milano, Italy
age
visits member for 4 years, 3 months
seen 1 hour ago

Postdoc student in Lille


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
Dec
9
comment Why isn't software abstract on a grander scale?
@Rawing The point is that no, there is no limit to abstraction, certainly not at this point. In trying to make the example more abstract, you missed some opportunities of abstraction because you were thinking that somehow one has to explain the task with counters. This is not the case; in fact I see manual iteration over counters as a rather low level detail. And this is exactly the answer to your question: software is not always abstracted at the right scale because people miss opportunities to abstract, being used to tell things in low level detail
Nov
11
comment Is there any mechanism to make programming language more stable(compatible) for changes?
Yes, but not necessarily. For instance, the compiler of Scala happens to be written in Scala, but when you set the Scala version in sbt, it is just fetched as a Jar and used to compile your sources. Even if it was an opaque binary, that would do as well. Now, there are reasons to define as much of the language as possible should be defined in importable packages, but those are covered in amon's answer
Nov
11
answered Is there any mechanism to make programming language more stable(compatible) for changes?
Oct
12
awarded  Notable Question
Oct
8
comment JVM memory and zero-copy (de)serialization
Thank you! It turns out that Javolution also has partial support for references to other objects, by using DirectBuffers and reading their address.