Comments by "" (@jboss1073) on "ThePrimeTime" channel.

  1. I doubt Rollercoaster Tycoon had unit tests.
    95
  2. OCaml is basically Haskell light. Ocaml is to Scheme like Haskell is to Common Lisp. Also OCaml just recently officially got Algebraic Effects. Insanely amazing and putting serious pressure on other languages to adopt them.
    61
  3. Honestly this is what keeps me in Rust. No other language can solve future problems before they happen quite as pragmatically and precisely as Rust.
    38
  4. Not true. Lisp matches what Lsip machines actually execute (as they have CPUs made to run Lisp natively at the die level).
    25
  5. Please disregard most of what that guy says. He is an old-school guy who repeats what he was told. He could not properly define OOP if you asked him. I doubt he knows who Luca Cardelli is.
    25
  6. There are books from 1970s showing whole GUIs being built automatically by Prolog AI from raw code without any GUI code. We're really all wasting time with frontend. We should standardize it, automate it, and forget about it. We should never code it again. A button is a button is a button. We all get it. Enough of it.
    19
  7.  @SimGunther  "If-Then-Else and functions are just an abstraction on call/jump/branch/ret instructions in assembly code." That is often said but it is not true. Inside the JUMP function of the CPU, there is already an if-then-else there - all programmers do is "recover" it to work with it in high level languages. So if-then-else is not an abstraction but actually implemented in the CPU at a LOWER LEVEL THAN JUMP.
    17
  8.  @monad_tcp  "what, that's not how CPUs execute JMP , there's no 'if-then-else" there, WTF A JMP only checks some flags (usually the ZF, Zero Flag, which is the status bit result of compare gt/lt/eq/ne) and then it rewrites the IP (instruction pointer) register conditionally on the flags, its more like a pure ternary operation that results in the register being modified to have either the same value or the operand based on the flag. " So to paraphrase you: "A JMP checks some flags... and then IF SOME CONDITION IS TRUE THEN it rewrites the IP register CONDITIONALLY". Hence you've proven my point: JMP is implemented on top of a more general IF-THEN-ELSE that is UNDERNEATH the JMP in the CPU.
    12
  9.  @monad_tcp  "Its only OO that's absurd and isn't equivalent to any of those two formal models. Even worse, OO isn't actually formalized (yes, I know about Modula-II, It failed at formalizing it)." OO is formalized (see Luca Cardelli's work) but since Objects turned out to be Comonads nobody gives a crap. OOP programmers were hoping their theory would be made solely of rainbows and unicorns and none of that stinky math.
    10
  10. Hi ThePrimeagen, Thank you for answering me on your other video, why you simply do not find Rust enjoyable. I'd like to tell you why I am still choosing Rust for the foreseeable future. First, keep in mind I am a fan of Functional Programming. The reasons I like Rust are simple. - Rust is lambda-calculus based (like Haskell) - Rust has easy error messages (unlike Haskell) - Rust has easy tooling (cargo edits .toml files for me) - Rust's advanced parts are very Computer Science-y and not very opinionated. - It feels like using a popular OCaml without Objects (which is a dreamy thing to say) All I wanted was to write either Haskell without Monads, or OCaml without Objects. Rust is that language I wanted to write. So now I write Rust. I hope this helps give you some perspective and thank you for all your videos. Cheers.
    10
  11.  @dealloc  But only OOP people call it "DI". FP people call it "passing an argument".
    9
  12.  @sk-sm9sh  Naming is the hardest problem in Computer Science. If you forgive them for the names, you will have much to gain from learning Functional Programming and Algebraic Effects. I recommend to learn Algebraic Effects in OCaml as it has currently the most well integrated implementation and it does not type check it, making it especially suitable for beginners.
    9
  13. I don't think any language is trying to replace Haskell. Haskell is a kitchen sink for many sorts of academics. I don't think any language creator is clamoring to take on that burden.
    8
  14.  @NorbertNemec  No, it does not. Pointers are still part of procedural programming.
    7
  15. Because OOP people don't follow their own theory, so they feel inadequate and need to sound smart to feel better.
    7
  16. 25:23 - Rust has nominal types with local inference. OCaml has structural types. The former is a more ad hoc and less constructive sort of system than the latter.
    7
  17.  @sk-sm9sh  They're called "algebraic effects" because the handlers of those effects are literally F-algebras. And being F-algebras allow them to be completely compatible with algebraic type inference systems such as the Hindley-Milner checker. So you want your effects to be algebraic because you want your compiler to be able to understand them via a process of algebraic reduction - just like you learned to solve algebra formulae in high school - instead of using ad hoc typing systems like C, C++, Java, and every other language that isn't properly FP does. All your comparisons are to superficial programming language features. You need to look for the underlying, mathematical features in order to understand why they're called "algebraic" effects.
    7
  18.  @sk-sm9sh  One thing at a time. You said: "so what I think about "algebraic type system" is type system that allows expressions such as X = Y | Z In this regard C lang type system is not "algebraic" as in that it doesn't allow to do any any kind of operations on top of type system." This is all correct. However, this is also the same thing that I said. Now, hold on. I know you're talking about type algebra and I was talking about code algebra. But they are actually the same. This was proven in 1935 when Gentzen and Church's work were shown to complement each other - one though code, the other through the types. Now on to the second thing. You are conflating the notion of "algebraic types" with the notion of "turing-complete types". A turing-complete type-system does not necessarily result in an algebraic type system - Zig and Rust are not algebraic, although typescript is (I believe, from last time I checked; I'm not a js coder). For example, Zig's type system is not algebraic just because it is turing-complete, although being turing-complete makes it capable of being algebraic; however once made algebraic, that portion of the code will be "narrower" and "stricter" than the rest of Zig's type system. Hence algebraization is a formalization, an assurance that all the terms work together compatibly, and can be computed by reduction. Then you said: "So I get it that it may make some sense to describe your typesystem as algebraic. But I fail to see how it makes sense to describe a feature in your language as "algebraic effect". If your effects are compatible with your language's typesystem and if your typesystem is algebraic then by deduction I already know that it's "algebraic". " But this is wrong: Monads are NOT algebraic (they famously cannot be composed, needing a monad transformer to do so, which is essentially writing the glue code manually - the opposite of algebraic composition), hence not every effect system is algebraic. That's the wonderful thing about algebraic effects: they're finally algebraic, which means no more monad stacks, monad transformers, or even monads for that matter - they all have become obsolete because Algebraic Effects (well, handlers and prompts, technically the things behind Algebraic Effects) were proven to be the composable mathematical dual of a Monad - meaning they're just as powerful as Monads, but they're actually composable - algebraic - on top of that. Finally we have an algebraic way to deal with effects. If we had ever had that before, Monads would never have been invented. Hence the tremendous importance in naming it "algebraic effects" so as to communicate that the solution to this enormous problem of modeling side effects algebraically - composably - has finally been found.
    7
  19.  @patrickkdev  At least it has an algebraic typechecker which dos have the potential to catch more and more bugs over time. No such potential elsewhere.
    7
  20. "the creators of Rails do Radical Simplicity" LOL How delusional.
    6
  21.  @sk-sm9sh  "What are these core mathematical features?" I just said in my last message: "So you want your effects to be algebraic because you want your compiler to be able to understand them via a process of algebraic reduction - just like you learned to solve algebra formulae in high school - instead of using ad hoc typing systems like C, C++, Java, and every other language that isn't properly FP does." Do you know what "via a process of algebraic reduction" means? 1 + 1 = 2 because 1 + 1 can be "reduced" to two via the "+" rule. Likewise in (proper, algebraic) programming (which is the same as mathematics via the Curry-Howard isomorphism, proof) things reduce: print : string -> IO "hello world" : string ":" reads as "is of type" so print is of type string to IO the string "hello world" is of type string In lambda calculus algebra, print ("hello world") reduces to : IO, meaning that it gives a value of type IO. This sort of mechanical deduction through the type system in this reduction fashion is what makes it algebraic. Please ask again if it is not clear. Once you get it you'll love it!
    6
  22. 28:38 - "Computers aren't functional" Sorry, but this is a lowbrow take. How computers are, is incidental to how we write programs. I invite you to think deeper about the relationship between how we write programs and how the computer incidentally runs them after the arbitrary number of transformations you consider "the computer running your code". I would argue it is quite tenuous. One could also similarly argue "CPUs are written (i.e. the diecast circuit is planned) with functional programming languages, so why shouldn't we also write functional programs to run on them?"
    6
  23. According to ThePrimeTime, no one ever makes bad tools - it's always the fault of the tool users. There are no bad tool makers. You just haven't spent enough of your life reading up on the manual. And the tool maker should never have spent more time providing easier ways to interact with its tools.
    5
  24.  @monad_tcp  "FP is an extension of procedural. In fact imperative and function code are equivalent. Because Lambda Calculus and Turing Machines are literally equivalent." All of this is false. For one, Turing Machines accept the Law of Excluded Middle in Logic, whereas Lambda Calculus specifically does NOT WORK with the Law of Excluded Middle - you have to delete that law first, in order to arrive at what is called "intuitionistic logic" or "constructive logic" which is where Lambda Calculus makes any sense.
    5
  25.  @depafrom5277  OOP has a specific definition of "objects" that has nothing to do with "everything in the universe can be defined as objects".
    5
  26. Lifetimes exist in every language, Rust just makes them explicit.
    5
  27. 21:10 - 21:14 - Elm proves OCaml is good enough for front-end as well.
    5
  28.  @tourdesource  The comparison is language size. OCaml is much smaller than Haskell-in-practice (which is Haskell plus many large extensions to the language). Just like Scheme is a much smaller Common Lisp.
    5
  29. LOL how old are these programmers who "missed the OOP hype", were they born 10 years from now, in 2033?
    5
  30.  @carlsjr7975  Exactly that. Few know this. OOP was created strictly for simulation. It was not ever meant for "general purpose". Of course this guy (the old guy) doesn't know this or care.
    5
  31.  @hola_chelo  "it, doesn't mean we can't extend it if we need to and put our own pretty colors, a form element is a form element." The Japanese barely do it, they are much more pragmatic, a website is just a bunch of controls to be interacted with, all the wall painting people are wannabe artists creating more work for programmers. Either artists should take the front end on entirely or it should be completely automatic and codeless. And if you want a red button well I'm here to tell you your users don't need it so just put the standard button and move on with your life, live your own life and stop thinking about buttons!
    4
  32.  @thewhitefalcon8539  Actually all arguments are technically DI.
    4
  33. OCaml shilling is NOT annoying.
    4
  34.  @sk-sm9sh  I said the algebraic Effects don't have type checks in OCaml yet. Type checking effects would be too complex for a novice. Type checking values as normal structurally-typed languages do is of course easier for the beginner.
    4
  35.  @sk-sm9sh  Then you go solve naming and show us all how it's done.
    4
  36. You are exactly right and I am in the same boat. React is absolutely awful and I am willing to work with it provided the company knows I suck at it, but I am not going to take a React code challenge. Bunch of fad followers, companies these days.
    4
  37.  @monad_tcp  Now that you've explained your point about pointers (pun not intended) I think I agree with you.
    3
  38. Please reevaluate. There is nothing to lifetimes. They exist in every language. Rust just made them explicit, which is a fancy word for "easier".
    3
  39.  @NickBrown33  Please don't ever do that - not only it is slower, it is more confusing in code. Just use ifs.
    3
  40.  @riliash  Yes, it filters out the busiest people, those who consult as freelancers, etc.
    3
  41. Also OCaml code runs screamingly fast as it has the most optimizing compiler in the world.
    3
  42. But what don't you like in Rust? Why don't you like it? Can you be more specific? I'd love to be able to relate.
    3
  43.  @tourdesource  None. I was drawing a relationship analogy.
    3
  44. You Zig folks should start giving Lisp more credit. You talk about comptime as if it's an original idea.
    3
  45.  @carlsjr7975  Yes, it was in the name!
    3
  46.  @ThaitopYT  why can't people make tools simpler? Git could benefit from a proper GUI and drag-and-drop.
    2
  47. I compile my JDSL code to JavaScript. And I changed the syntax to JavaScript too.
    2
  48.  @sk-sm9sh  You are being very childish. Proving your program's types is the only way to know it works correctly. If you're not using FP but are writing Unit Tests you are wasting your time due to your own ignorant attitude.
    2
  49.  @KonradGM  Use a global.
    2
  50.  @curlyfryactual  " like I said, a global is just a poorly implemented object. " But it's not, and no serious Computer Scientist would say that. A global is just a variable - an address in memory with some room for you to store some bytes. An object is a closure over methods and attributes plus a virtual table. In no way can you say that "a global is just a poorly implemented object" as those two things have nothing in common with each other. Globals are not objects. Not even poorly implemented ones. They're just not objects at all. "because a global is already the enemy of concurrency. " WRONG. If it is a Mutable Transactional Variable made global then it is concurrency-safe and parallelism-safe. You are having this newbie mindset that "globals" are just what you learned, but that's not true. Many things can be global, including concurrently-safe transactional variables. In fact, that is how it is done in the industry. "I work with enough "procedural with globals" architecture these days, and it's simply a pain. It is no easier to parallelize the execution of it; in fact, far worse." That is because you are ignorant of the existence of transactional variables. You shouldn't just make a value globally available in a global variable without putting it in a Software-Transactional-Memory box. Look into Clojure, all the globals are parallel-safe and concurrent-safe. "I love declarative code as much as the next guy. Plopping in a global is certainly not that." This discussion is not about "declarative code". But even if it were, Haskell is transactional and they have concurrent-safe globals too just like Clojure. It may be only the stinky language you're using making you believe globals cannot be concurrent-safe. Not true. "May as well do it right." Throughout your answer you have demonstrated you do not have the sufficient Computer Science knowledge to do anything right. God help your clients.
    2