Reputation
3,165
Top tag
Next privilege 5,000 Rep.
Approve tag wiki edits
Badges
1 16 31
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~184k people reached

Nov
30
comment Intentional misspellings to avoid reserved words
It doesn't tell you anything because it's not "code", it's an isolated variable declaration. A "class" or "klass" may very well tell you all you need to know. For example, a generic method may receive a Class<T> parameter, and this can make sense. So I disagree that it's a code smell.
Nov
29
comment Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
+1000 People who insist on using Scala as if it were Java++ make me afraid for the future of the language :(
Nov
29
comment Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
@sourcedelica As I said, if using Hibernate is a requirement, then Scala is no good for you (and in my experience, it's never a requirement to use both Hibernate and Scala). Writing unidiomatic Scala is always the wrong choice. I wouldn't write Hibernate code in Scala, because it's the wrong fit -- there is no "right" way to do it. Are you familiar with the phrase "using the right tool for the job"?
Nov
29
comment best practices for packaging in Scala projects?
Why would code written in Scala be "Pythonic"? By the way, Eclipse discourages the default package for Java.
Nov
29
revised best practices for packaging in Scala projects?
removed tag [java], since [scala] is a different language
Nov
28
comment Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
@ericacm You technically can, but you shouldn't. The class in the accepted answer you linked to is an abomination. That's not idiomatic Scala code, it's wasteful, and shouldn't be done unless using Hibernate was mandatory in your project... at which point you should really reconsider whether Scala is right for you. Please don't recommend this kind of code as if it was acceptable Scala :/
Nov
28
comment Confusion about data types, compilers, hardware data representation and static vs dynamic typing
My suggestion is that you study type theory, and when you have a concrete question, then you can try asking it here.
Nov
28
comment Confusion about data types, compilers, hardware data representation and static vs dynamic typing
Welcome to this site, Lord Cat. Your question seems way to broad for this site. I recommend you read the guidelines of what can be asked here; not any question is suitable here. For example, questions asking for books or references are (generally) off-topic. If you can imagine the answer to your question being one or more chapters of a book, or a even worse the subject of a course, then it's also off-topic here.
Nov
28
reviewed Reject Patterns for passing context through a method chain
Nov
27
reviewed Edit Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
Nov
27
revised Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
grammar, syntax, typos
Nov
26
comment Why would I not need an ORM in a functional language like Scala?
A word of warning: if you try to use Hibernate or any other invasive ORM which "takes over" your collections, you're in for a world of hurt in Scala. I strongly suggest you look for alternatives (either ditch Hibernate or Scala...). My own personal preference favors using Scala and ditching Hibernate, but be aware this is not a trivial change.
Nov
24
comment What is the purpose of wrapped values in Haskell?
Yes, Optional in Java is one such example of a "wrapper". What a wrapper (like a Functor) is, is more or less explained in the article you linked to.
Nov
21
comment What is the supposed productivity gain of dynamic typing?
Ok, but you cannot generalize dynamic vs static when you're actually comparing Python and C++. C++ is not a particularly representative example of a language with static typing. There are extremely concise statically-typed languages, which more or less allow you to write programs as brief as with Python. So, in general, your assertion is false.
Nov
20
comment Write C line by line
I'm not sure I understand the original question correctly, but if the OP is asking for a REPL for C, I think the most honest answer should be "that's not how you develop or debug C code. You should consider either learning the natural way to write C programs, or trying other languages". But that's just my opinion :)
Nov
20
comment Write C line by line
I think the OP might be asking about a REPL for C. I'm not sure I understand the question, though.
Nov
20
comment What is the supposed productivity gain of dynamic typing?
@JamesAnderson Even worse, the paper you linked to doesn't even support your point. It compares "scripting languages" (often dynamic) with "conventional languages" (often static). Now, tell me, what exactly are "conventional" languages? Do you think it's the same as the set of languages with static typing? Even worse, the paper is not that old. By the year 2000, lots of great languages with static typing which were arguably more productive than dynamic languages already existed.
Nov
20
comment What is the supposed productivity gain of dynamic typing?
@JamesAnderson But you haven't shown they are more productive! You have merely shown support for the notion they may be more productive than Java and C-like languages. That's an extremely limited subset of languages with static typing, and therefore, it doesn't help your point at all. It's as if I chose the worst possible dynamic language, compared it to Java, and said "see? Java is more productive than dynamic languages".
Nov
19
comment What is the supposed productivity gain of dynamic typing?
Perl: '87. Python: '89. ML: "early '70s". Miranda: '85. Haskell: '90. (Source: Wikipedia). All of these languages, dynamic and static, had many of the features you list (not claiming every language had all). So it seems you cannot truly argue it was historically an advantage of languages with dynamic typing. Perhaps you meant "static languages as used in the mainstream"? But that's an entirely different argument.
Nov
19
comment What is the supposed productivity gain of dynamic typing?
@JamesAnderson You are mostly begging the question, i.e. "dynamic languages are more productive because they are more productive". The only support is an old paper which uses very old and outdated programming languages with static typing.