Do you think Ruby could change something so fundamental as dynamic => static typing and still retain its beauty?
The only static typing solution I've seen for Ruby is Sorbet, and it's... not beautiful.
Do you think Ruby could change something so fundamental as dynamic => static typing and still retain its beauty?
The only static typing solution I've seen for Ruby is Sorbet, and it's... not beautiful.
Yes, My favourite is the `time` package. It's just so elegant how it's just a number under there, the nominal type system truly shines. And using it is a treat. What do you mean I can do `+= 8*time.Hour` :D
In Go, `int * Duration = error`, but `Duration * Duration = Duration`!
Yes, the cylindrically-curved screen is distinctively Trinitron. It’s easy to spot one at-a-glance, whereas the later fully-flat models look much more like those from other brands.
> I miss those buttery-smooth pans
This motion clarity is a big reason why CRTs are still the best way to play retro side-scrolling games.
I seem to remember my Sony G220 had a native resolution of 1024x768 and I could run it up around 100Hz. I think the max was 1600x1200@60Hz.
Often my maximum refresh rate was limited by my graphics card's dot clock rather than the CRT specs.
That’s 5:4. The correct 4:3 resolution is indeed 1280x960.
it doesn't? you simply don't understand what a match statement is.
https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-pattern-syntax.html
let num = Some(4);
match num {
Some(x) if x % 2 == 0 => println!("The number {x} is even"),
Some(x) => println!("The number {x} is odd"),
None => (),
}
notice that x is bound to 4.It's "a DSL contrived to look like Python, and to be used inside of Python, but with very different semantics":
https://discuss.python.org/t/gauging-sentiment-on-pattern-ma...
Ruby's `case`/`in` has the same problem.
Initially, the celebrated feature of python was that it allowed easy and fast development for newcomers. There was a joke a long the lines, "I learned python, it was a great weekend".
As much as I like python's type system (and wouldn't want to see them ever go way!), part of me wonders if moving into a world where hello-world can look like this, is a world where python is no longer the "lean in a weekend" language:
(obviously the example is silly, and I know this is a lot more than you need to do, hopefully you get my point though!)For the last 10 years, Python's evolution has been directed by professional developers working for large software companies, and they've focused on adding features that help them work on million-line Python codebases.
Even if the language was originally intended to be easy to learn and ideal for small programs, that's clearly not a design goal any more.
Is there a language today that’s as easy to understand as the “executable pseudocode” of Python 2.x? I haven’t found one.