I do know some guys using webcit to give them mails preparsed for their rails app, but they don't hang out around here...
CPS is something that I have to question the usefulness of. I can definitely see the advantages of it, especially for building your own control structures in an imperative language. However, from what I've read, it requires rewriting the order of expressions and requiring a new parameter, the continuation itself, to be passed everywhere. I haven't explored it much further, so maybe there are better ways to do CPS, but on the surface, it seems like it would severely reduce the readability and maintainability of code. Not the mention the "const virus" factor of having to add a new parameter to all your functions.
Heh heh heh, Haskell Binder is making note of the "const virus". ;)
I agree CPS is probably pretty perverse, except for the minority of cases (such as?) where you REALLY need it. (Compilers?)
Ford: OK, let's suppose for the sake of argument that LINQ is totally
the wrong way to go. But one still wants to build a web service that
I'm not saying it's the wrong way to go, but my first impression when I started reading was that it sounded very 11 1/2th generation language.
when you explain it that way it doesn't seem so bad.
Actually I always wondered why the sql parsing engine was on the server and not the client. I realize you want the server to weed out as much data as possible so you return as little as possible over tghe network, but I think having all the smarts on the client probbaly buys you something.
OData is interesting, but there are no FOSS serverside implementations.
I might just have to fix that.
I kinda like const.
I kinda like const.
that makes you a virus host or a parasite or soemthing.
Hmm... maybe a host in this case. Spreading const everwhere and all that.
Sometimes we made those mistakes anyway.. and then depending on what we wrote over, we might get a segfault right away.. so we would know we fucked up.
Or maybe we would truly fuck something up and end up with a difficult or insidious bug. It could happen. But it didn't happen that often. So yea, const.. it's cool, but it's also a pain in the ass. Like most programmers, I don't really want to spend a lot of time fighting with data types just to protect myself from a mistake that I'm probably not going to make. But I know that if I learned with const, I would probably keep using it.
I'm a little unusual in that I prefer strongly typed languages; must be my perfectionism streak (but when you look at things like PHP's problems with == vs === it starts to make sense.)
Const is a different animal and I tend to sprinkle "final" liberally throughout my Java code, mostly because I half wish I was programming in a functional language instead. But final in Java is nowhere near as useful as const in C++. You can't declare a method const as in C++, which declares that the method doesn't mutate its class.
The major problem with const in C is that in some environments you can't use it because you're using libraries that don't declare it where they need to.
programmers, I don't really want to spend a lot of time fighting with
data types just to protect myself from a mistake that I'm probably not
Scala's type system is rather nice - type inference is everywhere, so you don't need to declare as many types, you can let the compiler figure it out for you... and there are user-defined implicit conversions that kick in any time type coersion or method resolution fails. So you get some of that Objective-C/Smalltalk-like "class responds to X" coding style without the runtime overhead.
There is also a form of duck typing available when you need it, which does have the runtime overheard.
They call this structural typing: you can declare a type as "some object which supplies fields X Y and Z..."
C# has the same thing, but it's not as pervasive and is somewhat of a bag on the side.
me realy likes strongly typed languages. Having coded php for several years, starting to code c again was like getting rid of chewingum clogging up my brain.
I realy like const. Though it has some limitations with pure c: a function like strchr can't be there once with const, once without; its one of the fixes doable with it...
yea, one of the shortcommings of c.
For example--and I'm a little fuzzy on this, so I may have things backwards--this declaration:
const char *foo;
Declares foo as a pointer to a character that is read-only.
char *foo = "Hello world!\n";
char const *bar = foo;
Declares foo as a pointer to a character that can be read or written, but the pointer itself is read-only.
char *foo = "Hello world!\n";
const char const *bar = foo;
Declares foo as a read-only pointer to a read-only character.
It just seems a little wonky to me.
const char *Spell = Binder;
I will grant you that. Though the addition of void * to C muddled that rule.
But semantically, for the purposes of the const declaration, it kinda makes sense.