Larry the Legend

I agree, though you’d need to make sure it isn’t something that a human could notice and mistake as a PR convention for your repo, and then mimic

My problem with this, is it sort of divides people into “normal” brains, and “not normal” brains. But there is no such thing as “normal” brains. Everyone’s brains work differently. I think labels / diagnosis are important in cases where a person’s brain is different enough in a particular way that it becomes a problem (for them, or for interacting in society, or whatever), but in these cases I think the value of the label is to communicate in which way the person suffers a problem, so that people can be aware of it. It seems strange to me, to have a label which essentially means “I suffer from some kind of problem related to how my brain works, but I’m not going to tell you which problem”.

Edit: after reading other comments, I’ve realised that one place that neurodivergent makes sense as a label, is for building a community of people who share the experience of facing problems in life due to how their brain works. That’s of course, very valid.

I mean, I’m aware I can simply not murder people, but I still want murdering people to be banned. (Admittedly this is a false equivalence but the point stands)

I highly agree with the sentiment. Learning languages of different paradigms is sort of like travelling to visit other cultures to make you a more rounded, better person. Learn a functional language (lisp/Haskell). Learn a concatenative language (forth/Factor). Learn a logical language (Prolog/?). Heck even learn an assembly! (I suggest RISC-V).

A few good reasons, the first being that brand new operating systems don’t get written all that often. But even if they were, functional languages focus a lot on abstractions, making them generally higher level languages and so not fast enough to compete with C.

Having said that, Rust’s design is quite inspired by functional languages in many ways, and it is indeed being used in operating systems.

Sorry for replying to an old comment, but do you have some source to support this? I am searching online but finding nothing :(

Of course, but this assumes I know roughly what the text will look like that I’m searching for. If I already know what it will look like, I’ll use global search of course, but if all I know is that “at some point this element is put into the document” then I have no idea how that might actually happen. AI is just pretty good (ie succeeds sometimes) at generalising my words into a rough idea and searching for that.

I mostly use it as a code search tool, when dealing with large projects that I’m not very familiar with. Like I can ask “where is this component actually inserted into the web page” and it can sometimes point to a file and function. It doesn’t always work of course, but when it does it can save a lot of time.

I don’t ever let AI write code for me though

Exactly!! Having each different part be different colours essentially breaks the code into larger “tokens” which is much easier to read than letting your eyes get lost in a sea of uniformity.

It’s not about knowing which colour is variables and which colour is functions. It’s about there being some contrast between them.

Don’t be silly, you’ll obviously have your hands full defending your spleen from chipmunks, no time to dial 911

If it could be repeated 49 times, that might start to add up a little

Even Haskell is higher on the list than Go, which surprises me a lot

No, len is a constant time operation, at least in most cases I believe.

The hate and down votes are not for having an opinion on the language, they are for self-righteously proclaiming that opinion in inappropriate places. Someone sharing a cool project they made is not the place to start gatekeeping their choice of tech. That’s just being an asshole.

This is close, but as someone already said, an index into a list just means you are mutating the list.

Your stable “identifier” needs to be a function, ie. a reused design pattern. Compared to the list, this would be an index function which gets an element from an arbitrary list, meaning you don’t have to mutate your list anymore, you just build a new one which still works with your function.

This is why languages which avoid mutation and side effects are always (to my knowledge) functional languages.

It also means that more people have to be willing to sell (or that if only a few sell, investors hold less power)

Of course everything a company does is in the best interest of the company. Even as simple as “let’s make excellent products with lifetime warrantees” benefits them by making people want to shop there.

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing when companies realise the customers best interest are also their best interest. We should encourage that, not scoff at it.

I know right, while reading it I kept thinking “I can totally see how people might start to believe these models are sentient”, it was fascinating, the way it was “thinking”

The second syntax isn’t actually enums at all, it’s closer to a union type definition. You can’t even define enum Colour = Red | Green | Blue using your second syntax.