subreddit stringclasses 7
values | author stringlengths 3 20 | id stringlengths 5 7 | content stringlengths 67 30.4k | score int64 0 140k |
|---|---|---|---|---|
programmingcirclejerk | MurphLinear712 | guz0n1a | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>STOP CALLING ME A FUCKING CODER OR PROGRAMMER SHOW ME SOME RESPECT AND CALL ME BY MY JOB TITLE, S O F T W A R E E N G I N E E R<|eor|><|soopr|>Sure. Show me your reimplementation of CPython<|eoopr|><|sor|> use std::process::Command;
fn Rython() -> Result<()> {
Command::new("python3").arg("codez.py").output()?;
}
I implemented it in Rust and I call it Rython, it has zero cost abstraction, memory safety, blah blah blah blah, and it is moral.<|eor|><|sor|>Ah the V design pattern<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 31 |
programmingcirclejerk | avinassh | guyyfw7 | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>> I mean "software engineer" is just a title and whatever company she works for can choose to call it that
true! At my company my title is Haskalar, even though I write Python. The job offer letter said they dont have Haskal jobs, but can offer the title.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 24 |
programmingcirclejerk | xmcqdpt2 | guypkdv | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>canada professional societies: where is the jerk?
https://www.peo.on.ca/public-protection/complaints-and-illegal-practice/report-unlicensed-individuals-or-companies
/uj funnily enough neither of them would legally be allowed to call themselves SWEs here in Canada because CS degrees are also not engineering degrees
engineering degrees require student to take classes about how their work can kill people if badly done and how to ethically report that your bridges are breaking down or whatever so that SWEs can't just yolo their todo list apps without serious ethical discussions<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | categorical-girl | guycid3 | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>/uj
Holy crap is LinkedIn a toxic slum.<|eor|><|sor|>Either you die an underappreciated platform or you live long enough to see yourself become a toxic slum.<|eor|><|sor|>Google+ vs Facebook, perhaps<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | TheGidbinn | guya4pf | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>as a code artisan i don't rate software engineers in the same way i don't rate regular engineers, they are ghoulish people who are obsessed with excel and trains<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 22 |
programmingcirclejerk | sierramikeromeo | guyhzsv | <|sols|><|sot|>A computer scientist in theory should be able to design a programming language such as Python which you use. So keep that in mind <|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/sansPanicDev/status/1383104319839428609?s=19<|eol|><|sor|>Nobody that decides to use indents for scoping deserves the title of a software engineer, in theory.<|eor|><|sor|>I just have 4 characters for you: gg=G<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | k3h6lw | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 134 |
programmingcirclejerk | MisterOfScience | ge33wf4 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>But that all changed when the fire nation attacked<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 79 |
programmingcirclejerk | Adolora | ge39hcw | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 60 |
programmingcirclejerk | BlueMarble007 | ge38g3o | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>Cant jerk, its true<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 34 |
programmingcirclejerk | BlueMarble007 | ge3g4yc | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>Cant jerk, its true<|eor|><|soopr|>lol happiness.<|eoopr|><|sor|>Whats that? A monad of some sort?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 20 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | ge3aua7 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|soopr|>> It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
Rust.<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 19 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | ge3at3a | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>Cant jerk, its true<|eor|><|soopr|>lol happiness.<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 19 |
programmingcirclejerk | ProgVal | ge52cpd | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>But that all changed when the fire nation attacked<|eor|><|sor|>Only the 1000x programmer mastered all four programming paradigms. Only he can stop the ruthless Functionbenders. But when the world needed him most, he went AFK.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
programmingcirclejerk | Jumpy-Locksmith6812 | ge4cq9l | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|sor|>Wot? Everything is functional. Even C is functional:
void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;
(*fun_ptr)(10);
Even JavaScript!
eval ("Your function could go here... call 1800-YOURFUN")<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 14 |
programmingcirclejerk | HINDBRAIN | ge4wuh8 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|sor|>Wot? Everything is functional. Even C is functional:
void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;
(*fun_ptr)(10);
Even JavaScript!
eval ("Your function could go here... call 1800-YOURFUN")<|eor|><|sor|>JS is actually pretty decent as letting you declare and toss anonymous functions around, compared to crap syntax like java. Especially pre 8, where you have to dress your anonymous function in fine animal skin and have the tribe shaman do a dance to appease the ancestor spirits and beg them for fertility.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
programmingcirclejerk | csb06 | ge4jj93 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>/uj Why do these guys always seem to talk like poorly written high fantasy characters?
/rj Alas, the blub programmers will not heed me and the 1xers cannot hear me, for they are not familiar with functional programming. I will mount my horse, strum my lyre, sing sweetly, and ride onward to the next village with my whimsical prose and poetry: Haskell, that is.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 12 |
programmingcirclejerk | Uberhipster | ge4vfjh | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>haskallujah<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
programmingcirclejerk | Jumpy-Locksmith6812 | ge4d6p4 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>Cant jerk, its true<|eor|><|soopr|>lol happiness.<|eoopr|><|sor|>Whats that? A monad of some sort?<|eor|><|sor|>Even better it's `{-# LANGUAGE TemplateHaskell #-}`<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
programmingcirclejerk | jfb1337 | ge5rvv4 | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|sor|>Wot? Everything is functional. Even C is functional:
void (*fun_ptr)(int) = &fun;
(*fun_ptr)(10);
Even JavaScript!
eval ("Your function could go here... call 1800-YOURFUN")<|eor|><|sor|>JS is actually pretty decent as letting you declare and toss anonymous functions around, compared to crap syntax like java. Especially pre 8, where you have to dress your anonymous function in fine animal skin and have the tribe shaman do a dance to appease the ancestor spirits and beg them for fertility.<|eor|><|sor|>/uj JS is partly inspired by Scheme, a functional language<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
programmingcirclejerk | Busti | ge9em2l | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>The term Functional Programming has become more confusing over time. It used to mean just Haskell, but then some other programming languages claimed to be functional while being different the Haskell. Now I have almost completely stopped using the term and now just talk about the only programming language that matters Rust.
A little off topic does anybody know some good songs about Rust?<|eor|><|sor|>[removed]<|eor|><|sor|>you accidentally put your schizopost inside `/uj`<|eor|><|sor|>May you explain the schizo part?<|eor|><|sor|>You constantly write incomprehensible (maybe in part due to language barrier and sometimes carelessness) comments and go on about stuff seemingly unrelated to the topic like here "open/closed world assumptions", state machines, typestate, term rewriting. (Sometimes you state things that are understandable, but simply false.) Your socialjerks wander into conspiratorial word salads
> Netflix chaos monkey looks like cringe testing by product engineers. I think its a way to rebrand past rat experiments (of the consoomers)
There's also this style of writing (reminiscent of people that enthusiatically comment on popular political news websites) that presents things as arithmetic and equations, as well as far-fetched analogies.
> Onlineness is a cult around internationalism=some form of communism
And of course mentioning megacorporations, surveillance, Hitler, Nietzsche, freemasonry out of nowhere.
I hope this explains my use of the word "schizopost".<|eor|><|sor|>I did try to explain FP history. Do you have a better explanation?
How are humans supposed to learn other than by failures?
The posts you are referring to are from /r/programmingsocialjerk. Please comment there, as to not derail this discussion.<|eor|><|sor|>Fp is an emergent property of the universe that spontaneously forms in the cs students of any species after learning too much linear algebra<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
programmingcirclejerk | nmarshall23 | ge4hsfm | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>Some say he's still singing to this day..<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
programmingcirclejerk | hexane360 | ge3z4uz | <|sols|><|sot|>For many of us, switching from a Java-like language to a Haskell-like language was a profound experience, causing us to convert to the Functional Programming religion and to travel the land, singing its praises and extolling its virtues<|eot|><|sol|>https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/k36yp5/does_functional_require_an_advance_type_system/ge1mfqi/<|eol|><|sor|>[we've got a Level 7 Susceptible here](https://youtu.be/PngPQluO1jI)<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
programmingcirclejerk | tnbd | ju1gwe | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 133 |
programmingcirclejerk | tesch34 | gc8zxjb | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>> I dont know. But I will tell you that my native language (Spanish) is probably C++.
you can feed this sub for a year with the comments in this thread<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 106 |
programmingcirclejerk | ProfessorSexyTime | gc9ao8u | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Next week on Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic sex position?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 86 |
programmingcirclejerk | muntaxitome | gca8u86 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Ok given the keywords in these languages such as 'for', 'while', 'import', I would go with:
Python: English
PHP: English
Java: English
Javascript: English
Fortran: English
C: English
Go: simplified english
Perl: Klingon<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 62 |
programmingcirclejerk | iloveyouyes | gc91giw | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>> I dont know. But I will tell you that my native language (Spanish) is probably C++.
you can feed this sub for a year with the comments in this thread<|eor|><|sor|>Latin is C or assembly <|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 54 |
programmingcirclejerk | voidvector | gca9yig | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Next week on Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic sex position?<|eor|><|sor|>Circle jerking<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 39 |
programmingcirclejerk | PEP20_NAZI | gc9pwdw | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>BEAUTIFUL IS BETTER THAN UGLY
EXPLICIT IS BETTER THAN IMPLICIT
SIMPLE IS BETTER THAN COMPLEX
COMPLEX IS BETTER THAN COMPLICATED
FLAT IS BETTER THAN NESTED
SPARSE IS BETTER THAN DENSE
READABILITY COUNTS
SPECIAL CASES AREN'T SPECIAL ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES
ALTHOUGH PRACTICALITY BEATS PURITY
ERRORS SHOULD NEVER PASS SILENTLY
UNLESS EXPLICITLY SILENCED
IN THE FACE OF AMBIGUITY REFUSE THE TEMPTATION TO GUESS
THERE SHOULD BE ONE AND PREFERABLY ONLY ONE OBVIOUS WAY TO DO IT
ALTHOUGH THAT WAY MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS AT FIRST UNLESS YOU'RE DUTCH
NOW IS BETTER THAN NEVER
ALTHOUGH NEVER IS OFTEN BETTER THAN **RIGHT** NOW
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS HARD TO EXPLAIN IT'S A BAD IDEA
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS EASY TO EXPLAIN IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA
NAMESPACES ARE ONE HONKING GREAT IDEA LET'S DO MORE OF THOSE<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 32 |
programmingcirclejerk | stingraycharles | gc99rlm | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>> I dont know. But I will tell you that my native language (Spanish) is probably C++.
you can feed this sub for a year with the comments in this thread<|eor|><|sor|>Latin is C or assembly <|eor|><|sor|>Latin is Haskell, Greek is LISP, and Assembly is just Sanskrit.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 27 |
programmingcirclejerk | tfehring | gcagx3q | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Next week on Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic sex position?<|eor|><|sor|>Glory holes obviously. Doesn't matter who's on the other side, all you care about is what they do.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 24 |
programmingcirclejerk | GetRekt | gc97jl8 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>[If you have words with absolutely precise meaning, you have a branch of math, pure or applied. That happens all of the time. Philosophy is a big, weird fuzzy field because when the ideas get precise enough, they start to get regarded as math or science, and no longer the domain of philosophy. Likewise, sufficiently precise language would simply get reclassified as math, always leaving language "fuzzy" right by fuzzy philosophy.](https://i.imgur.com/XEEW9WI.jpg)<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
programmingcirclejerk | freak_dessert2 | gc8zyc4 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Literally lojban<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 16 |
programmingcirclejerk | Amphorax | gcam8ou | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>BEAUTIFUL IS BETTER THAN UGLY
EXPLICIT IS BETTER THAN IMPLICIT
SIMPLE IS BETTER THAN COMPLEX
COMPLEX IS BETTER THAN COMPLICATED
FLAT IS BETTER THAN NESTED
SPARSE IS BETTER THAN DENSE
READABILITY COUNTS
SPECIAL CASES AREN'T SPECIAL ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES
ALTHOUGH PRACTICALITY BEATS PURITY
ERRORS SHOULD NEVER PASS SILENTLY
UNLESS EXPLICITLY SILENCED
IN THE FACE OF AMBIGUITY REFUSE THE TEMPTATION TO GUESS
THERE SHOULD BE ONE AND PREFERABLY ONLY ONE OBVIOUS WAY TO DO IT
ALTHOUGH THAT WAY MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS AT FIRST UNLESS YOU'RE DUTCH
NOW IS BETTER THAN NEVER
ALTHOUGH NEVER IS OFTEN BETTER THAN **RIGHT** NOW
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS HARD TO EXPLAIN IT'S A BAD IDEA
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS EASY TO EXPLAIN IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA
NAMESPACES ARE ONE HONKING GREAT IDEA LET'S DO MORE OF THOSE<|eor|><|sor|>I'm just imagining Private Pyle yelling this while loading his rifle<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
programmingcirclejerk | spider-mario | gcaw4wy | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>> For some time now I have been thinking about the idea that every philosophical problem is inherently a linguistics problem
Not 100% sure whether /r/badlinguistics or /r/badphilosophy.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 12 |
programmingcirclejerk | ProgVal | gcafsvm | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>> I dont know. But I will tell you that my native language (Spanish) is probably C++.
you can feed this sub for a year with the comments in this thread<|eor|><|sor|>OCaml is en francais <|eor|><|sor|>[deleted]<|eor|><|sor|>/uj IMO "X.of y" is to be understood as "X made of y"<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 8 |
programmingcirclejerk | HueHuey | gcahadi | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Next week on Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic sex position?<|eor|><|sor|>self fellatio<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
programmingcirclejerk | officerthegeek | gc9cn28 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>[If you have words with absolutely precise meaning, you have a branch of math, pure or applied. That happens all of the time. Philosophy is a big, weird fuzzy field because when the ideas get precise enough, they start to get regarded as math or science, and no longer the domain of philosophy. Likewise, sufficiently precise language would simply get reclassified as math, always leaving language "fuzzy" right by fuzzy philosophy.](https://i.imgur.com/XEEW9WI.jpg)<|eor|><|sor|>thank you wackgenstein very cool<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
programmingcirclejerk | lackofsupervision | gcd2078 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>BEAUTIFUL IS BETTER THAN UGLY
EXPLICIT IS BETTER THAN IMPLICIT
SIMPLE IS BETTER THAN COMPLEX
COMPLEX IS BETTER THAN COMPLICATED
FLAT IS BETTER THAN NESTED
SPARSE IS BETTER THAN DENSE
READABILITY COUNTS
SPECIAL CASES AREN'T SPECIAL ENOUGH TO BREAK THE RULES
ALTHOUGH PRACTICALITY BEATS PURITY
ERRORS SHOULD NEVER PASS SILENTLY
UNLESS EXPLICITLY SILENCED
IN THE FACE OF AMBIGUITY REFUSE THE TEMPTATION TO GUESS
THERE SHOULD BE ONE AND PREFERABLY ONLY ONE OBVIOUS WAY TO DO IT
ALTHOUGH THAT WAY MAY NOT BE OBVIOUS AT FIRST UNLESS YOU'RE DUTCH
NOW IS BETTER THAN NEVER
ALTHOUGH NEVER IS OFTEN BETTER THAN **RIGHT** NOW
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS HARD TO EXPLAIN IT'S A BAD IDEA
IF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS EASY TO EXPLAIN IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA
NAMESPACES ARE ONE HONKING GREAT IDEA LET'S DO MORE OF THOSE<|eor|><|sor|>I'm just imagining Private Pyle yelling this while loading his rifle<|eor|><|sor|>*Field stripping, cleaning, lubing and reassembling his custom built mechanical keyboard<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 7 |
programmingcirclejerk | csb06 | gc9kob3 | <|sols|><|sot|>Ask HN: What is the most Pythonic spoken language?<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25090224<|eol|><|sor|>Parseltongue.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 6 |
programmingcirclejerk | camelCaseIsWebScale | ixphv3 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 131 |
programmingcirclejerk | SuspiciousScript | g68fjmw | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>> `auto p = std::launder(reinterpret_cast<int(*)[10]>(&x[0]));`
Sufficiently advanced C++ is indistinguishable from satire<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 136 |
programmingcirclejerk | Bizzaro_Murphy | g685xta | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>Template for a C++ keyword man page:
>**If** *very specific, hard to decipher, practically impossible to guarantee set of conditions are met*
>**Then** *keyword does something that could be more easily done with a minimum of 2 other language features*
>**Otherwise** *the behavior is undefined.*
>**Notes**: *In the prior version of c++ that you use, this feature has several spec bugs that make it unusable.*<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 134 |
programmingcirclejerk | etaionshrd | g6838nu | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>Sadly `std::launder` does not make it legal for you to do what you likely want it to do<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 58 |
programmingcirclejerk | irqlnotdispatchlevel | g688dm5 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>Template for a C++ keyword man page:
>**If** *very specific, hard to decipher, practically impossible to guarantee set of conditions are met*
>**Then** *keyword does something that could be more easily done with a minimum of 2 other language features*
>**Otherwise** *the behavior is undefined.*
>**Notes**: *In the prior version of c++ that you use, this feature has several spec bugs that make it unusable.*<|eor|><|sor|>Don't forget about the ill formed section.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 38 |
programmingcirclejerk | JohnMcPineapple | g68hivq | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>After reading it twice I've come to the conclusion that this is a terrible crutch for code no one should ever write and language features that shouldn't exist.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 35 |
programmingcirclejerk | CodenameLambda | g68n9uz | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|sor|>/uj
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39382501/what-is-the-purpose-of-stdlaunder is the best I could quickly find. And it's horrifying. (u/victor_sales, you also wanted to know)<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 34 |
programmingcirclejerk | exploooooosions | g68wky1 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|sor|>/uj
Paging here because I also am confused<|eor|><|sor|>The compiler might optimise your shitty code improperly. Instead of writing good code, you can use this function, which is aptly named after a crime to hide shittyness.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 34 |
programmingcirclejerk | vytah | g695h8i | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|sor|>/uj
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39382501/what-is-the-purpose-of-stdlaunder is the best I could quickly find. And it's horrifying. (u/victor_sales, you also wanted to know)<|eor|><|sor|>> Are you asking about the paper itself or aboutstd::launder?std::launderis used to "obtain a pointer to an object created in storage occupied by an existing object of the same type, even if it has const or reference members."txtechhelpSep 8 '16 at 4:25
God, I love how Stack Overflow can be useful some times.
I will just assume that this is either one of those features that I will never use, or that will be useful in 7 years when I need the feature it provides and the libs that do this are awfully complex.<|eor|><|sor|>> "obtain a pointer to an object created in storage occupied by an existing object of the same type, even if it has const or reference members."
Is this the new "monoid in the category of endofunctors"?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 28 |
programmingcirclejerk | northrupthebandgeek | g699ggy | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>Sadly `std::launder` does not make it legal for you to do what you likely want it to do<|eor|><|sor|>But it does at least automatically spawn Italian restaurants and used car dealerships for me, so it's a start.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 24 |
programmingcirclejerk | ceeant | g68kvjc | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>After reading it twice I've come to the conclusion that this is a terrible crutch for code no one should ever write and language features that shouldn't exist.<|eor|><|sor|>C++ Comity: Yes.jpg<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | segv | g68r911 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>Template for a C++ keyword man page:
>**If** *very specific, hard to decipher, practically impossible to guarantee set of conditions are met*
>**Then** *keyword does something that could be more easily done with a minimum of 2 other language features*
>**Otherwise** *the behavior is undefined.*
>**Notes**: *In the prior version of c++ that you use, this feature has several spec bugs that make it unusable.*<|eor|><|sor|>Don't forget about the ill formed section.<|eor|><|sor|>And bad examples<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | FascinatedBox | g681b0z | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>This is the zygo blah blah of C++.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 22 |
programmingcirclejerk | feeeedback | g68lp78 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 21 |
programmingcirclejerk | victor_sales | g68o2i4 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|sor|>/uj
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39382501/what-is-the-purpose-of-stdlaunder is the best I could quickly find. And it's horrifying. (u/victor_sales, you also wanted to know)<|eor|><|sor|>> Are you asking about the paper itself or aboutstd::launder?std::launderis used to "obtain a pointer to an object created in storage occupied by an existing object of the same type, even if it has const or reference members."txtechhelpSep 8 '16 at 4:25
God, I love how Stack Overflow can be useful some times.
I will just assume that this is either one of those features that I will never use, or that will be useful in 7 years when I need the feature it provides and the libs that do this are awfully complex.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 21 |
programmingcirclejerk | lorslara2000 | g68xqca | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I have little C++ experience, and I'm trying to figure out what does this actually do? The page says it takes a pointer to an object and returns a pointer to the same object? So it does nothing?<|eor|><|sor|>/uj
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39382501/what-is-the-purpose-of-stdlaunder is the best I could quickly find. And it's horrifying. (u/victor_sales, you also wanted to know)<|eor|><|sor|>> Are you asking about the paper itself or aboutstd::launder?std::launderis used to "obtain a pointer to an object created in storage occupied by an existing object of the same type, even if it has const or reference members."txtechhelpSep 8 '16 at 4:25
God, I love how Stack Overflow can be useful some times.
I will just assume that this is either one of those features that I will never use, or that will be useful in 7 years when I need the feature it provides and the libs that do this are awfully complex.<|eor|><|sor|>Ah yes, I like to read the SO so much more even when that same exact quote is found on the cppreference page. But the official documentation is scary and SO is friendly and has upvotes and green tick symbols so it makes me feel happier.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 20 |
programmingcirclejerk | tubbshonesty | g69d39t | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>/uj
std::launder is pretty much for telling the compiler to not assume anything about the lifetime of an object referred to by a pointer. You need to use std::launder when you reuse a piece of memory to store a new object I.e through placement new. You cannot refer to the new object by pointers to the previous object even though they refer to the same memory address. To refer to the new object you need to use either the return value from placement new or std::launder the old pointer that refers to the same memory address.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 19 |
programmingcirclejerk | zip117 | g69o757 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>/uj
std::launder is pretty much for telling the compiler to not assume anything about the lifetime of an object referred to by a pointer. You need to use std::launder when you reuse a piece of memory to store a new object I.e through placement new. You cannot refer to the new object by pointers to the previous object even though they refer to the same memory address. To refer to the new object you need to use either the return value from placement new or std::launder the old pointer that refers to the same memory address.<|eor|><|sor|>> You cannot refer to the new object by pointers to the previous object even though they refer to the same memory address.
You cant tell me what to do, youre not my *real* dad. Ill `reinterpret_cast` any pointer I want and it will probably work just fine otherwise some shitty old code would break. Sorry not sorry for undefined behavior.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | Karyo_Ten | g68uvwo | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>I am `transmogrified`<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
programmingcirclejerk | ws-ilazki | g69ypd8 | <|sols|><|sot|>std::launder<|eot|><|sol|>https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/utility/launder<|eol|><|sor|>> `auto p = std::launder(reinterpret_cast<int(*)[10]>(&x[0]));`
Sufficiently advanced C++ is indistinguishable from satire<|eor|><|sor|>> Sufficiently advanced C++ is indistinguishable from ~~satire~~ **Perl**<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 13 |
programmingcirclejerk | haskell_leghumper | i9cjt0 | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 134 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | g1e6kqx | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>I am a genius and I don't know about it, therefore it is ivory-tower elitism. If it were that useful, I would know about it.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 133 |
programmingcirclejerk | ds84182 | g1eenqi | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>You don't need that for good software. `struct IPAddress { v4: Option<u32>, v6: [Option<u8>; 6], address: Option<String> }` works perfectly fine, never had any issues.
KISS, DRY, LAMP, XHTML 1.0 Compliant, whatever management wants. At the end of the day it's good software.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 64 |
programmingcirclejerk | Beheddard | g1eddzm | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>gate**K**eeping **I**gnorant **S**tupid **S**impletons is a a design principle we take very seriously in the ivory type space station.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 43 |
programmingcirclejerk | ws-ilazki | g1ekzr9 | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>> Yeah I see the appeal of tagged unions, but... just do F# if you want them.
At least he's not *completely* stupid. You could simplify that statement to "just do F#" and save a lot of unnecessary words, though.
Hopefully he retires before [this HN prediction comes true](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23249889) or he's going to be on suicide watch:
> In a few years, C# 20.0 will have only one release note: Changed the name from C# to F#
Or maybe he'll just give up and go full Gopher.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 36 |
programmingcirclejerk | andiconda | g1egswg | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>You don't need that for good software. `struct IPAddress { v4: Option<u32>, v6: [Option<u8>; 6], address: Option<String> }` works perfectly fine, never had any issues.
KISS, DRY, LAMP, XHTML 1.0 Compliant, whatever management wants. At the end of the day it's good software.<|eor|><|sor|>After hearing the term "devops compliant" thrown around in meetings at work, I now look forward to the day when I hear "kiss compliant".
And when that happens... Let's just say, I'm glad all our meetings are over cameras-off zoom.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 33 |
programmingcirclejerk | camelCaseIsWebScale | g1etd8d | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>Anyone who doesn't agree with my Programming wisdom is blub programmer
-- Paul Graham
Anyone who talks something I don't know is ivory tower elitist function programmer
-- Rob Pike<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 31 |
programmingcirclejerk | rafgro | g1epmp2 | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I write software for 26 years now, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed stars on github. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top stackoverflow user in the entire C# history. You are nothing to me but just another target.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 25 |
programmingcirclejerk | ws-ilazki | g1f2chp | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>I'm going to guess that it's like an array merge that takes a function so it does filtering too. Now I'm going to look it up...
EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.<|eor|><|sor|>> EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.
"Discriminated union" is just the wageslave-friendly name that F# uses for a concept other languages call "sum types". The latter sounds scary and academic so it had to be renamed to be more appealing to the average .NET wage slave.
uj: In case this isn't a jerk or anybody reading is curious, it's *not* about interfaces, it's about a more expressive way to describe data. The talk itself is about something else, but there's a spot [at 19:09 in this talk](https://youtu.be/Up7LcbGZFuo?t=1149) with a decent layman's explanation. [*Functional Programming in OCaml*](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/) also does a good job of explaining them [in this chapter](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/data/intro.html). The quick-and-dirty explanation is you have "product types" and "sum" types, and you combine them in arbitrary ways to describe complex data structures so that the compiler can give you compile-time guarantees about the structure and how it's being used in code.
A sum type defines an either/or relationship where a value can only be any one thing (and only one thing) in it at a time, e.g. `type suit = Diamond | Heart | Club | Spade`. Like an enum, that thing can be just the name itself , or it can contain additional information like "this has an int", such as a possible definition of a card rank: `type rank = Number of int | Jack | Queen | King | Ace`.
Then you have product types, which basically describe tuples such as `type point = int * int * int`, a product type of three ints. Algebraic data types are where you combine sum and product types together in arbitrary ways to describe more complex data, so following the card stuff above, `type card = rank * suit` defines a product type consisting of a pair of sum types that describes a card. When you have types like this you can then use other language features like pattern matching to extract the data you want and verify all cases are covered.
TL;DR: like /u/dreamwavedev said, "they let you do cool pattern matching shit"<|eor|><|sor|>> Discriminated union" is just the wageslave-friendly name that F# uses for a concept other languages call "sum types". The latter sounds scary and academic
What a world to live in where "sum type" is scarier than discriminated union<|eor|><|sor|>The problem is that "sum" not only implies math, it's usually followed by "product types" and "algebraic data types" and all that stuff sounds *academic as fuck*. Meanwhile, "discriminated union" has big "business logic" energy. It sounds fancy but it sounds *business fancy*.
A "sum type" is something you mention at a university lecture, but a discriminated union sounds like the kind of data type you can proudly bring to a business meeting to impress the execs.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 25 |
programmingcirclejerk | officerthegeek | g1ew3ed | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I write software for 26 years now, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed stars on github. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top stackoverflow user in the entire C# history. You are nothing to me but just another target.<|eor|><|sor|>\> Not even replacing Al-Qaeda with RESF<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | ws-ilazki | g1el3eq | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>Jeez that guy seems like such a douchey blow hard<|eor|><|sor|>> Jeez that guy seems like such a ~~douchey blow hard~~ typical software developer
FTFY<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 20 |
programmingcirclejerk | andiconda | g1fle1u | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>You don't need that for good software. `struct IPAddress { v4: Option<u32>, v6: [Option<u8>; 6], address: Option<String> }` works perfectly fine, never had any issues.
KISS, DRY, LAMP, XHTML 1.0 Compliant, whatever management wants. At the end of the day it's good software.<|eor|><|sor|>After hearing the term "devops compliant" thrown around in meetings at work, I now look forward to the day when I hear "kiss compliant".
And when that happens... Let's just say, I'm glad all our meetings are over cameras-off zoom.<|eor|><|sor|>/uj what is "devops compliant" supposed to mean?<|eor|><|sor|>My best understanding: "able to be ran in VM's and shit"<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 20 |
programmingcirclejerk | ws-ilazki | g1ernu9 | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>I'm going to guess that it's like an array merge that takes a function so it does filtering too. Now I'm going to look it up...
EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.<|eor|><|sor|>> EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.
"Discriminated union" is just the wageslave-friendly name that F# uses for a concept other languages call "sum types". The latter sounds scary and academic so it had to be renamed to be more appealing to the average .NET wage slave.
uj: In case this isn't a jerk or anybody reading is curious, it's *not* about interfaces, it's about a more expressive way to describe data. The talk itself is about something else, but there's a spot [at 19:09 in this talk](https://youtu.be/Up7LcbGZFuo?t=1149) with a decent layman's explanation. [*Functional Programming in OCaml*](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/) also does a good job of explaining them [in this chapter](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/data/intro.html). The quick-and-dirty explanation is you have "product types" and "sum" types, and you combine them in arbitrary ways to describe complex data structures so that the compiler can give you compile-time guarantees about the structure and how it's being used in code.
A sum type defines an either/or relationship where a value can only be any one thing (and only one thing) in it at a time, e.g. `type suit = Diamond | Heart | Club | Spade`. Like an enum, that thing can be just the name itself , or it can contain additional information like "this has an int", such as a possible definition of a card rank: `type rank = Number of int | Jack | Queen | King | Ace`.
Then you have product types, which basically describe tuples such as `type point = int * int * int`, a product type of three ints. Algebraic data types are where you combine sum and product types together in arbitrary ways to describe more complex data, so following the card stuff above, `type card = rank * suit` defines a product type consisting of a pair of sum types that describes a card. When you have types like this you can then use other language features like pattern matching to extract the data you want and verify all cases are covered.
TL;DR: like /u/dreamwavedev said, "they let you do cool pattern matching shit"<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 19 |
programmingcirclejerk | univalence | g1f21za | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>I'm going to guess that it's like an array merge that takes a function so it does filtering too. Now I'm going to look it up...
EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.<|eor|><|sor|>> EDIT: Turns out it's about classes, not arrays. It's like a really fucked up way to do Interfaces, it seems like.
"Discriminated union" is just the wageslave-friendly name that F# uses for a concept other languages call "sum types". The latter sounds scary and academic so it had to be renamed to be more appealing to the average .NET wage slave.
uj: In case this isn't a jerk or anybody reading is curious, it's *not* about interfaces, it's about a more expressive way to describe data. The talk itself is about something else, but there's a spot [at 19:09 in this talk](https://youtu.be/Up7LcbGZFuo?t=1149) with a decent layman's explanation. [*Functional Programming in OCaml*](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/) also does a good job of explaining them [in this chapter](https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs3110/2020sp/textbook/data/intro.html). The quick-and-dirty explanation is you have "product types" and "sum" types, and you combine them in arbitrary ways to describe complex data structures so that the compiler can give you compile-time guarantees about the structure and how it's being used in code.
A sum type defines an either/or relationship where a value can only be any one thing (and only one thing) in it at a time, e.g. `type suit = Diamond | Heart | Club | Spade`. Like an enum, that thing can be just the name itself , or it can contain additional information like "this has an int", such as a possible definition of a card rank: `type rank = Number of int | Jack | Queen | King | Ace`.
Then you have product types, which basically describe tuples such as `type point = int * int * int`, a product type of three ints. Algebraic data types are where you combine sum and product types together in arbitrary ways to describe more complex data, so following the card stuff above, `type card = rank * suit` defines a product type consisting of a pair of sum types that describes a card. When you have types like this you can then use other language features like pattern matching to extract the data you want and verify all cases are covered.
TL;DR: like /u/dreamwavedev said, "they let you do cool pattern matching shit"<|eor|><|sor|>> Discriminated union" is just the wageslave-friendly name that F# uses for a concept other languages call "sum types". The latter sounds scary and academic
What a world to live in where "sum type" is scarier than discriminated union<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 18 |
programmingcirclejerk | tetroxid | g1fd2ra | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>You don't need that for good software. `struct IPAddress { v4: Option<u32>, v6: [Option<u8>; 6], address: Option<String> }` works perfectly fine, never had any issues.
KISS, DRY, LAMP, XHTML 1.0 Compliant, whatever management wants. At the end of the day it's good software.<|eor|><|sor|>After hearing the term "devops compliant" thrown around in meetings at work, I now look forward to the day when I hear "kiss compliant".
And when that happens... Let's just say, I'm glad all our meetings are over cameras-off zoom.<|eor|><|sor|>/uj what is "devops compliant" supposed to mean?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | Beefster09 | g1fvx65 | <|sols|><|sot|>I write software for over 26 years now and I have no fucking clue what 'discriminated unions' are. I'm sure they're lovely. I'm also sure you don't need any of that for good software. KISS is a feature.<|eot|><|sol|>https://twitter.com/fransbouma/status/1293634897962205186<|eol|><|sor|>You don't need that for good software. `struct IPAddress { v4: Option<u32>, v6: [Option<u8>; 6], address: Option<String> }` works perfectly fine, never had any issues.
KISS, DRY, LAMP, XHTML 1.0 Compliant, whatever management wants. At the end of the day it's good software.<|eor|><|sor|>Can't use `Option`s. Those are discriminated unions.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 14 |
programmingcirclejerk | nyanpasu64 | hanzj0 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 136 |
programmingcirclejerk | xeveri | fv3xvjl | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Too bad Go came out before Rust invented generics, destructors and algebraic data types.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 136 |
programmingcirclejerk | TheLastMeritocrat | fv40god | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 42 |
programmingcirclejerk | ReversedGif | fv53zgu | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Too bad Go came out before Rust invented generics, destructors and algebraic data types.<|eor|><|sor|>Where's the jerk? Rust has affine types, which put its types in a whole 'nother world: compared to that, types in a normie language are practically just dynamic typing. If your types don't capture multiplicity then you might as well just use Python.<|eor|><|sor|>Edit: unjerk {
Rust did not invent those things
}<|eor|><|sor|>plz read *Implicit Unjerk Considered Harmful* -Dijkstra, 1968<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 42 |
programmingcirclejerk | camelCaseIsWebScale | fv46qe8 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Too bad Go came out before Rust invented generics, destructors and algebraic data types.<|eor|><|sor|>This comment should have been on hacker news, as a reply to that comment.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 35 |
programmingcirclejerk | muntaxitome | fv4yeky | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>what, did they create go in the 60s?<|eor|><|sor|>Given that Go has its roots in the Bible itself, you can't really put an exact date on it.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 35 |
programmingcirclejerk | VeganVagiVore | fv4831j | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|soopr|>I can't tell if this is sarcasm, I wasn't programming back in 2010...<|eoopr|><|sor|>You are like a little baby who has barely injected 1.5 krabniks<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 33 |
programmingcirclejerk | tunczyko | fv4hp13 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>what, did they create go in the 60s?<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 32 |
programmingcirclejerk | logicchains | fv4aicq | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|sor|>I like Go, but it's a shame Rob wasn't familiar back then with (obscure) languages like OCaml or Limbo. Taking sum types and concurrency concepts from Limbo and simple abstraction mechanisms from OCaml would surely befit Go's purpose without complicating the language too much.<|eor|><|sor|>Plot twist: Rob "The Evan Czaplicki Of Imperative Programming" Pike actually created Limbo, but when he tried to introduce it at Google people literally shit their pants in fear at the sight of a function that could work with multiple concrete types, so he decided to tone it down to make it less terrifying.
*The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, theyre not researchers. Theyre typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. Theyre not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.*<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 31 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | fv4uvku | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>I am a hacker news poster (top 10% IQ) so if I hadn't heard of it it probably didn't exist.
Just more ivory-tower BS<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 28 |
programmingcirclejerk | 28f272fe556a1363cc31 | fv4zv0a | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Too bad Go came out before Rust invented generics, destructors and algebraic data types.<|eor|><|sor|>Where's the jerk? Rust has affine types, which put its types in a whole 'nother world: compared to that, types in a normie language are practically just dynamic typing. If your types don't capture multiplicity then you might as well just use Python.<|eor|><|sor|>> just use Python.
I love it when you talk dirty.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 23 |
programmingcirclejerk | vicarofyanks | fv4rlop | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|soopr|>I can't tell if this is sarcasm, I wasn't programming back in 2010...<|eoopr|><|sor|>You are like a little baby who has barely injected 1.5 krabniks<|eor|><|soopr|>(unrelated) how do i inject 1.5 estrogens<|eoopr|><|sor|>`sudo apt-get soy`<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 22 |
programmingcirclejerk | secdeal | fv4mk2h | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|sor|>I like Go, but it's a shame Rob wasn't familiar back then with (obscure) languages like OCaml or Limbo. Taking sum types and concurrency concepts from Limbo and simple abstraction mechanisms from OCaml would surely befit Go's purpose without complicating the language too much.<|eor|><|sor|>Plot twist: Rob "The Evan Czaplicki Of Imperative Programming" Pike actually created Limbo, but when he tried to introduce it at Google people literally shit their pants in fear at the sight of a function that could work with multiple concrete types, so he decided to tone it down to make it less terrifying.
*The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, theyre not researchers. Theyre typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. Theyre not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.*<|eor|><|sor|>I would give you a gold if I had any money. I'm Haskaler<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 21 |
programmingcirclejerk | orgulodfan82 | fv4qgbx | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|soopr|>I can't tell if this is sarcasm, I wasn't programming back in 2010...<|eoopr|><|sor|>Watch any early Go talk that wasn't done on home turf (so no Google I/O luminary worship sessions). And enjoy the cringe/jerk combo Q&A's at the end ([semi-famous example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-pPAvqyluI&t=3253)).<|eor|><|sor|>[https://youtu.be/2-pPAvqyluI?t=3511](https://youtu.be/2-pPAvqyluI?t=3511)
"C++ Raw pointers are safe, because you can see it right on the page. After you delete a pointer, just don't use it anymore, and then it's safe!"<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 18 |
programmingcirclejerk | 15rthughes | fv4lk89 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Zoomer programmers OUT OUT OUT<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | logicchains | fv49k33 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>Too bad Go came out before Rust invented generics, destructors and algebraic data types.<|eor|><|sor|>Where's the jerk? Rust has affine types, which put its types in a whole 'nother world: compared to that, types in a normie language are practically just dynamic typing. If your types don't capture multiplicity then you might as well just use Python.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | nyanpasu64 | fv41jjo | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|soopr|>I can't tell if this is sarcasm, I wasn't programming back in 2010...<|eoopr|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 17 |
programmingcirclejerk | TheLastMeritocrat | fv4dxj5 | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>It's true. The **consensus** for most software engineers was that "sum types" are hard and "generics" aren't necessary and the type system should stay out of the way.
I don't think anyone can fault Rob Pike for this. Pro-generics arguments were niche and minority views in 2010 and may not even be in the majority today.<|eor|><|soopr|>I can't tell if this is sarcasm, I wasn't programming back in 2010...<|eoopr|><|sor|>Watch any early Go talk that wasn't done on home turf (so no Google I/O luminary worship sessions). And enjoy the cringe/jerk combo Q&A's at the end ([semi-famous example](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-pPAvqyluI&t=3253)).<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 15 |
programmingcirclejerk | jeremyjh | fv53i3r | <|sols|><|sot|>Go has the unfortunate circumstances of its birth being before widespread recognition of the value of generics and better type systems.<|eot|><|sol|>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545702<|eol|><|sor|>what, did they create go in the 60s?<|eor|><|sor|>Given that Go has its roots in the Bible itself, you can't really put an exact date on it.<|eor|><|sor|>That's funny I was pretty sure our whole calendar system is based on its initial release date.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 15 |
programmingcirclejerk | cmov | eikyh1 | <|sols|><|sot|>What if Go 2 was better than Go 1 not because it had more features, but fewer?<|eot|><|sol|>https://old.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ehtacc/proposal_let_go_2_be_a_subset_of_go_1/<|eol|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 135 |
programmingcirclejerk | Uiropa | fcryn0w | <|sols|><|sot|>What if Go 2 was better than Go 1 not because it had more features, but fewer?<|eot|><|sol|>https://old.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ehtacc/proposal_let_go_2_be_a_subset_of_go_1/<|eol|><|sor|>I propose this complete list of 4 features for Go 2:
* based on a polymorphic lambda calculus
* lazy evaluation
* algebraic data types
* type classes<|eor|><|sor|>Calm down, Alonso Church. I say take out all that mathematical hokum and leave only a symbol alphabet, a state transition table and a tape.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 83 |
programmingcirclejerk | fp_weenie | fcrpsjg | <|sols|><|sot|>What if Go 2 was better than Go 1 not because it had more features, but fewer?<|eot|><|sol|>https://old.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ehtacc/proposal_let_go_2_be_a_subset_of_go_1/<|eol|><|sor|>I agree. Functions are ivory-tower elitism, your average programmer (nothing like me btw, I totally understand this stuff) simply can't "grok" them. We should return to copy-pasting procedures with different data when needed. You usually use a different algorithm for different data anyway.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 74 |
programmingcirclejerk | Uiropa | fcry0oq | <|sols|><|sot|>What if Go 2 was better than Go 1 not because it had more features, but fewer?<|eot|><|sol|>https://old.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/ehtacc/proposal_let_go_2_be_a_subset_of_go_1/<|eol|><|sor|>Ive always felt that multiplication is too complex. You have your star symbol (what is this, god damn pointer land?), you need to learn about commutativity and ring theory... So intimidating to all those dumbass new developers who come to work at Google fresh from Stanford. Just remove multiplication and instead repeatedly add in a for loop. Make it clear what the hell is going on.<|eor|><|eols|><|endoftext|> | 52 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.