142
Haskellers when someone boasts about Typescript's fake type system. (infosec.pub)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 7 months ago (9 children)

I started programming in a time when the idea that the computer could keep track of your variable types for you automatically was a fever dream, so it's wild for me to see some programmers now throwing shade at particular langages for "not implementing proper variable typing functionality".

It feels like someone saying that low-fat milk producers are too cheap or lazy to put enough fat in their milk.

Fashion really does go in cycles.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago*

    I don't even think it's fashion. Some ideas sound good but are bad. Or, overlappingly, are convenient to use but actually turn into nightmarish spaghetti code. I don't know how many people are still pushing MongoDB and BASE, for example.

    Meanwhile SQL hasn't changed, and C didn't until someone figured out memory safety in Rust.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Sorry for not being clear; when I said "keep track automatically" I meant dynamic typing. Of course you're right that "keeping track of your variables" could also be interpreted to refer to static typing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Fashion really does go in cycles.

    This here.

    When I got into programming I figured it would be mostly linear technological progression. Every once in a while something new gets invented that's better than the last iteration, so we discard the last option (except for legacy stuff) and everyone moves to the better thing.

    But since then everything that was cool back then became uncool and cool again at least once.

    I like the SQL/No-SQL cycle. SQL is powerful, but it's also slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invented No-SQL DBs. They are fast, lightweight, but also barebones and limited. So we add functionality here and there, and before we know it we have another variant of SQL with a different syntax. So we head back to use real SQL. But then we realize it's slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invent a new No-SQL DB and the cycle continues.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago

    That's pretty much my point. Actual Nosql does have use cases, but more often than not it was used for hype reasons. "Everyone uses Nosql, let's not become legacy and hop on the Nosql train!"

    Document DBs came out of Nosql, and are pretty much the same as SQL for most use cases, just with their own funky syntax.

    And then again there are the use cases where people use SQL without relations, basically as a Nosql DB. Just do ORM for everything, do the database stuff in memory in Java and just use SQL to dump crap into.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent