HN user
I'm a fan of NodeJS, but I would never use it to try to solve a computation heavy problem, it's good at IO multiplexing
No it isn't. It is very bad at it. It just uses the most primitive event loop and foists all the complexity of that onto you as the developer using it.
I am suggesting that your confidence is misplaced. Having little experience in something means you should have little confidence in your knowledge of that thing.
Links or it didn't happen.
To what? I'm supposed to link you to reality? How about since haskell is a general purpose, turing complete language, you demonstrate that there's some magical reason that it can only be used for "pure math problems" and nobody can be productive in it doing "real work". Why should a random nonsense claim be given the standing of fact and need to be disproved?
friends (I know, it may be biased)
That's why I asked if it was true in your heart. Lots of people say things they think sound reasonable and believable based on other third hand information, but which are in fact made up. I have a very hard time believing you have so many friends into haskell and unable to write programs in it. Especially after teaching a bunch of PHP people who had never heard of functional programming (and half had never heard of types!) haskell in a few short lessons. Either your friends are some crazy statistical anomaly, or my developers are. Or perhaps your friends are apocryphal.
GitHub codes I use
"I don't use anything written in haskell so you can't write anything practical in it" is a pretty poor argument.
I encounter mostly language-oriented
Where are you encountering them? And are you sure you aren't just misinterpreting "practical" blog posts as "academic" because they mention something you don't want to hear like monads? Even most things I would assume you classify as "language-oriented" are still about solving practical problems.
http://ro-che.info/articles/2014-12-26-monad-control-type-sy...
That might sound scary to people who don't know haskell, but it is about solving a common issue with web development (and other server type programming) in a nice reusable library. Do you really think there's tens of thousands of people just sitting around writing haskell code that does nothing for no reason?
but setting it up in any distro is also never more than one command away, unlike the other languages mentioned.
No, exactly like the other languages mentioned. If you are seriously going to try to pretend installing python or ruby or perl is harder than installing PHP then you can't expect anyone to react as if you are being serious and genuine.
I can't even find a tutorial on how to run Ruby under FastCGI
That sounds like a serious problem. I would suggest looking for a local "introduction to computers" type class. They tend to teach basic usage of windows and the web, including how to use google to search for things. I think it would help you a lot.
and RoR appears to be the de facto way to run Ruby websites
While I'm sure the rails guys must be flattered, I don't know how you got that appearance. There's a whole bunch of frameworks, just like with PHP. And you don't need to use any of them, just like with PHP. But of course, you know all this and are just trolling.
Haskell is one of those languages for people who want to show off how clever they are
Yes, that's what banks are most known for. Showing off how clever they are and not doing anything useful. Facebook and google certainly fit that profile as well right?
Does Perl, Python or Ruby have built-in automatic escaping and sanitization?
No, of course not. That's very much the point. PHP's broken attempt at that created security holes.
On top of that all three of those languages require additional setup
No they don't. It is just that someone else has already done the setup for you with PHP at most cheapo hosting companies. Installing python is no harder than installing PHP.
(Especially Ruby with RoR shudder)
You are comparing a framework to a language. Rails is no harder to setup than any of the PHP frameworks like zend or symfony.
I know a lot of people encharmed by it, but no-one productive (i.e. delivering products quickly; it's not the same as solving pure, mathematical problems).
Is this actually true, or is it "true in your heart"? Very few people use haskell for solving "pure mathematical problems". People use it for things like developing the fastest microkernel in existence, doing high volume trading, making games, and writing boring old web apps. References to "pure mathematical problems" and implying nobody is actually doing anything with haskell come off as sounding like second (or third, or fourth) hand FUD. We taught our PHP team haskell. They had their first project in production in three months. There's nothing special about math and haskell.
PHP is the standard bearer for the expert beginner. People write something that seems to be working quite quickly, so they feel they "get it" and know what they are doing. And then they stagnate and stay like that for 5, 10, 15 years even and never learn more. And then when presented with things they don't know, they resort to anti-intellectual rhetoric and trying to convince themselves that those things are "just a different way of doing it but no better than how I do it" and stay there in their rut forever thinking themselves an expert.
I just don't find Haskell ... to be as productive as many would suggest
I have ... very little experience with Haskell
So, how would you know?
A much worse DVCS, but written by a famous person.
PHP is full of problems that lead directly to security vulnerabilities if you aren't constantly aware of them and very careful when writing your code. So when someone who doesn't know those problems (most people) "hacks together" something that "just works", it is almost always providing a backdoor into that server. Once you do learn a little, you find that every scripting language is just as easy to work with as PHP (if not easier) and much safer. So why use PHP over perl or python or ruby or even javascript? They just aren't compiling into apache for no reason.
The part where he makes fun of the agile snake oil salesmen despite the fact that he was one of the biggest offenders?
And I am telling you that is not the part I said is a lie.
So whatever the effect in society is, it's probably like 5% biological (or less) and 95% cultural.
Making up random nonsense just reinforces the obvious fact that you are an ideologue pushing an agenda, not someone interested in reality or equality.
it's also known that humans can overcome their instincts
Yes, parents should force their children to "overcome their instincts" in order to meet arbitrary quotas demanded by hyperliberal babies with guilt complexes. That sounds very reasonable.
That society is unfair towards women is objectively true
No, it is quite literally not objectively true. You subjectively believe that. I understand you believe that. But it is not an objective fact any more than me enjoying pie makes "pie is good" objectively true.
women are not just underrepresented in certain random fields, but they are underrepresented mostly in fields that bestow a lot of power
No, we are also underrepresented in the worst jobs. The apex fallacy does not get any less ridiculous through repetition.
So objectively, men have a lot more power than women in society, so it's not just "unevenness" but "unfairness".
That would only be true if the tiny minority of people in power were using that power to manipulate things to the benefit of men. They are not. Simply having a penis does not grant one special powers because other people with penises have power. Notice how US politics is completely dominated by made up "women's" issues despite most politicians being men?
This part: "Discrimination on the basis of sex is, in fact, not as illegal"
My post said nothing of the sort. Trying to justify your shitposting by saying I am to blame for your assumptions is ridiculous. If you don't know about the subject, don't post about it as if you are an authority.
You are presupposing that toys make girls be girls. All evidence is to the contrary and suggests girls toys are made and sold because girls want them. Even in infancy, before any "social" effects can be a cause, sex based toy preferences exist. In fact, they even exist in other primates who clearly are not part of our society.
This is seriously the level of discourse here? Just flagrant outright lying?
The equal rights amendment was not about equality. I am legally equal to a man. That should be the end of government involvement. Discrimination is already illegal. Domestic violence is already illegal. Being opposed to absurd DV legislation that requires arresting men who seek help when they are being abused is not being anti-women.
I can't imagine any way to make it clearer for you, sorry. But perhaps I can set you on a path that might help. The word "honest" does not only mean "sincere; frank". It can also mean "honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair".
What's wrong about updating a language?
Nothing, they do update the language. But fundamentally changing the language to be completely different is not the same as adding some small thing. C is simple on purpose. Adding complexity is not just an update, it is making it no longer suitable for its intended goal. So they choose not to.
I would rather prefer not reinventing the wheel and a language that actually ship with it.
You don't have to reinvent the wheel, use a library like you already said.
I think your definition of simple is very different of mine
Clearly. But mine is the same as 90% of the people who have commented on the subject. People overwhelmingly describe C as simple.
Scheme is simple
Yes it is. As is C.
How come something cumbersome has nothing to do with simplicity?
You just quoted how. Are you joking?
Also I am not saying that C++ is simple
But you are arguing that C is complex and thus not appropriate, while C++ is appropriate. You can't have it both ways.
Yes, I have used both in my formal job, and I can avoid memory leaks and memory corruption easily on C++
Which has what to do with debugging? And why are you incapable of avoiding those problems easily with C when everyone else does it just fine?
Not the case on C, specially when working in medium size teams where always people forget what they should cast a void* into and why they should not.
Yes, clearly there's no way groups of people could work together on large complex software in C. I'll go tell linux, apache, X, all 4 BSDs, nginx, postgresql, postfix, etc, etc, etc that they don't exist. I'm sure they'll be glad to know.
Well Scheme is a good example of language that is order of magnitudes simpler than C and it is not prone to memory leaks nor memory corruptions
Scheme is not even one order of magnitude simpler than C. Go read the specs. And scheme is not prone to memory leaks and "corruption" because it is higher level. This also makes it much slower. Even more importantly, it makes it a ridiculous comparison.
If by simple you mean simpler than C++, yeah.
You are the one advocating C++ over C while claiming C is too complex. What are you blaming me for?
Most of the people who use the phrase "control women's body" of the "pro-life" side do, in fact, see that as the motivation of the pro-life side, and ditto with most of the people who use "murdering babies" to describe the "pro-choice" side.
That's the point.
There's nothing dishonest about those particular examples. Yes, they aren't accurate to how the described side sees themselves,
So they are dishonest.
That's not dishonest rhetoric, its a clash of fundamental values
No amount of making a random baseless assertion will turn it into a fact. Try spending some time working as a mediator with people with "extreme" views on this subject. You'll find their views are not actually extreme, they are just misrepresented.
To the people who hold the extreme positions, the people on the other side don't have valid points.
Again, that's the point. Is this some kind of joke? Yes, the whole point is what A thinks about B is false, and what B thinks about A is false. A doesn't think B has a valid opinion because they don't know B's actual opinion, just a deliberate misrepresentation of it by the people who created the harmful rhetoric in the first place.
Here's a recent article about parents to a girl who try to fight all those pressures placed on her so that she's free to choose what she wants to do in life:
No, that is an article about a couple who want to push their child away from what they consider "traditional gender roles" because they think they need to for some reason. There is nothing to indicate the girls was pressured to act like a girl. I may be old, but I can in fact still remember being a girl. I remember that girls could excel in school and be popular, but boys were "nerds" if they did well in school. I remember being selected as one of the "advanced students" to go learn about computers. I remember that there were only two boys selected. It is hard for me to ignore my experiences just because it is politically incorrect to be a woman who doesn't claim to be a victim.
By their very definition, cultural pressures are invisible
That is not in the definition
So, step one: learn to see those biases.
I've had that pushed on my many times. Imagine being a woman in university. I don't think you realize just how hard and how frequently it was pushed on me. But it was not about learning to see invisible biases. It was about learning to blame everything on biases that could not be seen, and you have to take it on faith that they exist.
That's just not true at all.
What are you supposed to do when a woman tells you about her lived experiences again?
It's sad that you think so, because those proven, blah blah look I know better than you just shut up and accept my gracious help because I am a man so I clearly know better than you and you are just blind to it because you've only spent the last four decades living it
Yes, please save me from the imaginary boogeymen. I need a big strong man to rescue me and assuage his misplaced guilt.
No, clash in fundamental values is why the abortion debate is so heated
Except most of the people who "like murdering babies" don't actually like murdering babies and most of the people who "want to control women's bodies" don't actually want to control women's bodies. Most people's feelings on the subject are actually a lot closer than the rhetoric makes it appear. The rhetoric was created by people with agendas, who don't want people to recognize that both sides have valid points and are actual human beings who care.
Dishonest rhetoric is why the abortion debate is so heated. It has no place in a reasoned discussion.
I think I didn't explain myself, but something that basic in these days should be on the standard library in my opinion.
Ok well you hop in your delorian and go back to 1970 and let them know. In the mean time, how does that in any way make C not capable for the same tasks as C++?
I don't think C is simple at all
Then you don't know C. The entire point of C is that it is simple.
Its syntax can be really cumbersome at times
That has nothing to do with simplicity, and C++ has far more complex syntax.
Also it is very annoying to debug
C is very simple and straight forward to debug. C++ is much more difficult to debug. Have you ever used either language?
and C code is very prone to contain memory corruption bugs and leaks.
Because it is so simple.
C has great advantages but being simple is not one of them.
Well your opinion is in the vast minority, and does not seem to have any basis in reality. The C spec is a tiny fraction of the size of the C++ spec.
The original unreal in 1998 was C with classes. And a significant amount of asm. And note that was in 1998, and part of the sales pitch was that it was OO, which was essentially unheard of at the time. C++ compilers were still really bad at the time, and if you wanted to be portable you really couldn't use much besides C with classes. The unreal engine has been rewritten from scratch several times over the years. What we have now is not indicative of what we had 15 years ago.
Do you really think C is any easier to understand that C++?
Yes. C is very small and simple. You can learn all of C in a very short time. C++ is the most complex programming language in existence. It is unlikely that there is any person in the world who actually knows it all, including the creators.
or you could try to implement or use an existing implementation of a dynamic array
Imagine that. You could use libraries that implement things you want. What a concept.
maybe making an effort to pursue women workers
We have, repeatedly. We got a lot of interest in our events. We got no interest at all in actually applying for a job here.
By helping to remove the societal pressures that create the situation that less women apply
What pressure is that? How am I supposed to remove pressures that I can't see and whose existence is almost exclusively attested to by men who insist they know what my life is like better than I do?