While the "BBM" tends to work alone and be frustrated at artiface at every corner, when you get a few or more working together, some really great things can come together. I've experienced that firsthand.
I might be in the minority here, but "fighting unfamiliar syntax" seems like a lazy argument to me. I've played around with many languages, and after getting used to the first non-c family syntax (in my case, Scheme) it never bothered me anymore.
There are valuable lessons I've learned from other languages and I don't think I could have learned them if I would have stayed in the language I was comfortable in at the time. It's much more difficult (in my mind) to try novelty when you have ingrained habits already.
well for one, it's being used in the industry quite a lot. Citi, Walmart, Amazon, CapitalOne, Facebook, and Spotify are just some of the names from this list.
I'll agree that clojure doesn't enforce control of side-effects. But with the recent work on clojure.spec, your first complaint has become (even more of) an asset.
> Other Nevada solar companies with higher cost structures than SolarCity are expected to collectively lay off thousands of additional Nevadans in the coming months.
One thing I've noticed is depending on how your code is being compiled/transpiled, having smaller defn's over them being nested in a let can lead to better performance since inlining becomes an easier problem.
This is particularly true in clojure, since it's being compiled to java byte-code, and the jvm has a few default settings for how deep it'll look into the call tree for inlining. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tUrbf6Uzu8 for a talk that mentions this.
I've noticed the complete opposite. There's less of an emphasis on unit tests, but that's because the nature of FP enables you to need less of them. Instead of needing to check (at least as often) if objects behave correctly, you can write the few tests necessary to give you some regression abilities later on.
I've noticed a huge emphasis on testing the sytem, specifically through means of generative/property-based testing.
As someone that suffers from mental illness (depression), it's not completely off to mark to say that it isn't all bad--I seem to do better than peers in many creative endeavors--but I would immediately give up the benefit it gives for the freedom of a more stable mind. I wouldn't have a second thought.
I couldn't help but notice that quote, either. I wonder why the author found it necessary to put that in on an article about the pixels of the Apple Watch? I don't see that information doing much besides inciting a flame war.
That's exactly what I was thinking. I (sometimes) follow TDD, and I applied it to this problem. I made sure to include negatives, 0, positives, and include primes here or there to help avoid issues with multiplication/exponentiation. After a few of these, I felt pretty confident that the rule was simple.
> Google servers run "a non standard concept of time" (what does that even mean?).
I know that one way they do this is through using what they call a leap smear instead of a leap second. Yesterday, instead of having 11:59:59 twice, they evenly distributed out the second over the course of the day.
Just curious, why do you say this? I've used bash for years for basic command line things and now it sounds like I've been missing out on great features that other shells have.