Functional programming languages should be so much better at mutation than they are
Functional programming languages should be so much better at mutation than they are A lot of people think that functional programming is mostly about avoiding mutation at all costs. Even though persistent data structures are great and there is definitely some truth to it, this view just doesn't really hold up in reality. Many data structures fundamentally require some form of mutation (e.g. union
The lost language extensions of MetaWare's High C Compiler
This book I got in a pile of FM TOWNS books turns out to be a lot more interesting that I was expecting an '80s C compiler manual to be. For as long as C and its relatives have been in mainstream use, it has been necessary to use vendor language extensions to actually get anything done with it, though in today's GCC/Clang/MSVC oligopoly those extensions tend to be focused on the yak-shaving detail
mi kama sona e toki pona or something
So I stumbled a few weeks ago on this video about the world's smallest conlang and I've been thinking about it ever since. (You will probably have the idea more than fully by the ten minute mark.) This fascinated me. I think languages are really interesting but I'm also really bad at them. I cannot hack the memorization. I've mostly avoided conlangs (that's Constructed Languages, like Esperanto or
1
リリース、障害情報などのサービスのお知らせ
最新の人気エントリーの配信
j次のブックマーク
k前のブックマーク
lあとで読む
eコメント一覧を開く
oページを開く
