copergi

Javascript is weakly typed. And untyped does not mean no type declarations. It means no types, just like it says. Assembly is untyped. Javascript is dynamically typed. Very different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_language#Typed_vers...

Javascript does not define the implementation details. It does not have to be interpreted, and in fact I don't believe any modern implementation is interpreted. Javascript is generally compiled to byte code which is then run in a VM, or native machine code (V8 at least does this). There is no reason javascript could not have a static type system, there are statically typed scripting languages. It is dynamically typed by deliberate decision, not "we can't do it any other way".

>I accept that I will be downvoted for this.

Why would that happen? Ignorantly bashing haskell strawmen is pretty common here. Btw, while you hit two of the biggest ones, you did forget to complain about it being "academic" and thus unusable for "real world" programming. That should be pretty much standard by now.

>It's sad that we should expect Haskell users to be chauvinistic about static typing.

We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.

>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".

Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.

>Welcome to the world of languages with type systems that don't suck

Go is not in that world. It isn't even in the same star system.

If there's one thing SLWs hate, it is other SLWs.

He also gets a lot wrong in that talk, so that doesn't seem like a particularly compelling case.

>If anything it's the old "Goto statement considered harmful" that's a little too naive.

No, people who didn't read it and just repeat the title without knowing what he was talking about may be too naive, but the original point was not.

>You can do that with ctags

And I can do it without ctags. That's the point.

>Depends, one proeminent C project doesn't use that: the linux kernel

That doesn't make his statement "depends" at all. A single project not using that style does not contradict it being "pretty common".

Are you sure you aren't confusing it with K&R style with the argument names on a different line? That would indicate old code. Having the return type on a different line is incredibly common, virtually every C project with decent code uses it.

Odd. I have cookies disabled period, and only enable them for specific domains where I want to log in to something. I still get constant ads on youtube unless I use an ad blocker.

I love that those of us who give a shit about the users can use the mobile trend to push good user-centric design on otherwise unwilling marketing weasels. I just wish they would stop pretending it is in any way unique to mobile users. Almost all that stuff is just ordinary "give the user a site that doesn't suck", and applies to any user, regardless of the device they are using at any particular moment. "Make your menu simple" and "give relevant search results" and "don't put up registration walls to prevent your users from giving you money" have been well known for over a decade. Take this opportunity to push good web design for your entire site, not just for mobile users.

The tools in question, and the OS in question, bear little to no resemblance to unix or its tools. Blaming unix for the monstrosities that it inadvertently spawned isn't really fair.

That someone was mistaken. How exactly do you think they "struggled to maintain" a fork of software that was barely active in the first place? How does "apache but chrooted by default" constitute "frankenapache" exactly? Given that their struggling was so clear to you, could you point me to something that would make it clear to the rest of us?

You can do whatever you want. But drawing nonsense conclusions won't suddenly become reasonable just because you are defensive about the shootout.

>Please contribute your Haskell regex-dna program

No. I stopped bothering with that cluster fuck like a decade ago. It is a complete waste of time.

>For example, I wouldn't tell someone to write a web server backend in Haskell if it's going to be in production.

You probably shouldn't be giving advice then.

>This is how Galois and Facebook are taking advantage of Haskell

Facebook is using haskell for a high performance, high concurrency server for filtering. You do realize how similar that is to a web server right?

Linking to the benchmark game as if it means something should be a bannable offense. When you look at something that encourages speed at all costs, that is what you will see. People do low level optimizations like that to gain 0.5% better performance. That does not mean you need to do anything like that to get good performance.

>The main force holding me back from learning Haskell is the cryptic syntax

Haskell doesn't have a cryptic syntax. The same complaint would be just as (in)valid leveled at any commonly used language. We're not talking APL here.

>There are so many great languages out there nowadays, Clojure, Go, Erlang.

Go does not belong in that list.

>I don't see where Haskell would be a better fit

For writing software. I realize that sounds snarky, but that really is the answer. To see the problem with your question, just turn it around. Where would clojure or go be a better fit than haskell?

>"hard to explain" or "easy to obfuscate."

I wouldn't call it either of those things. They are so general that people have a hard time getting them. That's all.

>That's what the "mumble mumble endofunctors" joke is getting at: sometimes they're a useful generalization, but more often they're a way to make easy things sound hard, or to make bad teachers sound smart.

That is not at all what the joke is getting at (and that doesn't even make sense).

>Why do you magically trust OpenBSD?

It isn't magical. I've spoken to many of them. I've seen the work they've done over the last 15 years. They earned my trust.

>Much of the projects early funding was via DARPA

No, a relatively small amount was via DARPA, and that funding was pulled due to Theo criticizing the US government. And that was not early in the project, it was like 8 years into the project's life. Doesn't really scream "NSA plants".

You are only looking at a tiny subsection of CPUs, which happen to be the niche intel dominates. CPUs are in a lot more devices than just PCs and laptops.

It is pretty crazy that nobody is will to give you two ethernet on anything sub-$100. You literally have to pay an extra $50+ just for a second NIC.

ftp://ftp.openbsd.org/pub/OpenBSD/OpenNTPD/

11/11/2009 is not 8 years ago. That "better link" is exactly what I was referring to.

Yeah, fuck those openbsd guys and their totally not portable openssh that you can't run on anything but openbsd!

>You can have great software without insulting half the internet

You overestimate how many web hipsters there are. And annoying them is not "being an immature brat". It is precisely to discourage their involvement. Because the mentality behind the web fads are precisely why the entire world of software is layers upon layers of shit stacked on top of each other.

>Count the number of vulnerabilities in OpenSSL over the last few years, relative to the size of its code base. A single vulnerability

You might want to take your own advice. There have been tons of vulnerabilities in openssl, not one.

>LibreSSL inherits all of the undiscovered vulnerabilities in its huge code base.

That would be why it is being gutted and audited. That's the whole point.

>OpenSSL has provided years of free software, supporting thousands of sites and applications.

And has done it so poorly that it has been a security nightmare the whole time. Just because something is given away, doesn't mean the world is obligated to be thankful for it. Giving away crap doesn't make it not stink.

>Portable OpenNTPD seems to have died: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/OpenNTPD

If you follow that through the series of links, you find that it is just an assumption based on one guy who didn't know the project existed thinking unchanged = unmaintained.

>Ain't using CVS potentially an issue here?

No, why would it? If you don't trust the openbsd developers, the don't use their code.