One angle on why it's useful to write tests. (classical link bait)

drKreso · 1 month

I found the "compile-time" safety to be false guard. I rarely get bugs for showing string in the middle of calculation. Logical errors OTOH are much more frequent. Maybe in Haskell it means more, but for .NET or Java it's just false sense of security if you ask me. As for tests I think they help out for 1. designing the classes 2. someone elses code 3. your code after 3 months 4. hard code that needs changing, but a lot depends on it (you have coded documentation for it in the form of runnable tests, do you don't need to remember it all)

drKreso · 1 month

I am not sure I understand. (As for unit testing it's Kent Beck/Smalltalk stuff. Ruby has a lot of Alan Kays ideas from Smalltalk so I think culturally it's a good fit.)

drKreso · 1 month

LOL, I bet you have some war stories to back this up... maybe even like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYUrqdUyEpI

drKreso · 5 months

In Ruby block is not list comprehension as far as I understand it. Monads - I wish I could understand them :) I did try with limited success on linq but it is still a big ball of mud in my head (Trying to read practical haskell also... a sad story of a man (me) vs. technology :))

drKreso · 5 months

In a lot of common cases, list comprehensions will look better/similar to Ruby. There’s one problem: List comprehensions are a special-purpose feature, and you can’t use the same mechanisms for building your own domain languages(for instance RSpec).

drKreso · 5 months

drKreso · 5 months

I didn't know I could do that ;)

drKreso · 5 months

It is not just the functional part it is the whole look&feel that I like. This is highly personal of course. I would also qualify Cojure (or any Lisp) for a real functional programming without th erm... interesting syntactic choices. Actually CL has no syntactic choices, it is the syntax-sugar-less and simple :)

drKreso · 5 months

Wow, thanks for the answer I make sure to check this out. Thanks for the insights.

drKreso · 5 months

It is kind of messy I agree. It took me a while to get it. Lambda procs and Procs procs are subtlely different. Generaly I think you always use lambda (1.9 has -> literal) because it behaves "nicer", and Proc is left for legacy reasons. Block is "uninitialized" Proc so not many surprises there.... All in all it's it not perfect by any means, but language is rather nice.

drKreso · 5 months

Thanks. It is explicit, I have to give you that. Colleague of mine is hard-core Pytonista. I have a mixed feelings, but it does seem pragmatic. One thing that he likes about Ruby are blocks, and all-around better support for anonymous functions.

drKreso · 5 months

List comprehension to the rescue... could you post an example with something more complex. I suppose you need function if its more that one row?

drKreso · 5 months

I would love to see some code/hear experiences. Lisp is intimidating me, but Clojure seems like a syntax-sugared enough version :)

drKreso · 5 months

Literal for list in Ruby is same as the Python, except there is no distinction between tuple and list, so I actually find Ruby approach tiny bit simpler.

drKreso · 5 months

Wow, this looks intimidating :) It think perl has some baggage along with the indisputable power.

drKreso · 5 months

Clojure is good stuff!

drKreso

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login