Although we think of C++ as an object-oriented language Dynamic typing ... easy to be productive, while strict typing ... significantly easier to build ... large systems.
??? which one is it “functional” feature like recursion. Remember that design patterns aren’t “invented”; they’re observed, they’re solutions to problems that show up again and again, and that should become part of your repertoire.
ah yes, let's not expand our language, instead, let's just repeat the same implementation and hope we do it the "right" way every time (of course, Haskell devs are also "guilty" of this - e.g. "the ReaderT pattern", but to me ReaderT seems vastly simpler compared to the mounds of patterns Java(?) people seem to have)
I really don't understand what the article is advocating for, it's way too vague
what makes Haskell not multi-paradigm? the only thing I know is that "inheritance" (as known in e.g. Java) is clumsy
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25185197
some funny (to me) excerpts:
Although we think of C++ as an object-oriented languageDynamic typing ... easy to be productive, while strict typing ... significantly easier to build ... large systems.??? which one is it
“functional” feature like recursion.Remember that design patterns aren’t “invented”; they’re observed, they’re solutions to problems that show up again and again, and that should become part of your repertoire.ah yes, let's not expand our language, instead, let's just repeat the same implementation and hope we do it the "right" way every time (of course, Haskell devs are also "guilty" of this - e.g. "the ReaderT pattern", but to me ReaderT seems vastly simpler compared to the mounds of patterns Java(?) people seem to have)
I really don't understand what the article is advocating for, it's way too vague
what makes Haskell not multi-paradigm? the only thing I know is that "inheritance" (as known in e.g. Java) is clumsy