Some bad interview questions are like that, sure. But they're supposed to be things you are very unlikely to have done before and can reasonably figure out. It's not too hard to come up with simple questions like that. (Though I will grant many people don't seem to bother.)
Stop linking this, please! Any benchmark where Typescript and JavaScript are different is trash.
Yeah I agree. It's often easier to start from something that's wrong than a blank page.
I would add this to the Wikipedia page for .mu, so at least other people don't use it. You can site this discussion as a source.
Sure, but there are a gazillion forum websites already. I'd just use an existing one. The one D uses is the best I've ever used. I think it's actually written in D, which is a very niche language but way nicer than Ruby.
It's not because people are sensitive, it's because Rust gets a lot of dumb criticism and people are tired of it.
But don’t you loose polymorphism?
No. You'll have to be more specific about what kind of polymorphism you mean (it's an overloaded term), but you can have type unions, like int | str.
Your points 1-3 are handled by running the code and reading the error messages, if any
Not unless you have ridiculously exhaustive tests, which you definitely don't. And running tests is still slower than your editor telling you of your mistake immediately.
I probably didn't explain 4-6 well enough if you haven't actually ever used static types.
They make it easier to navigate because your IDE now understands your code and you can do things like "find all references", and "go to definition". With static types you can e.g. ctrl-click on mystruct.myfield and it will go straight to the definition of myfield.
They make the code easier to understand because knowing the types of variables tells you a lot of information about what they are and how to use them. You'll often see in untyped code people add comments saying what type things are anyway.
Refactoring is easier because your IDE understands your code, so you can do things like renaming variables and moving code and it will update all the things it needs to correctly. Refactoring is also one of those areas where it tends to catch a lot of mistakes. E.g. if you change the type of something or the parameters of a function, it's very easily to miss one place where it was used.
I don't think "you need to learn it" really counts as slowing down development. It's not that hard anyway.
I can understand the appeal for enterprise code but that kind of project seems doomed to go against the Zen of Python anyways, so it’s probably not the best language for that.
It's probably best not to use Python for anything, but here we are.
I will grant that data science is probably one of the very few areas where you may not want to bother, since I would imagine most of your code is run exactly once. So that might explain why you don't see it as worthwhile. For code that is long-lived it is very very obviously worth it.
It's sooo sloooow though.
Impressive persuasion! I can't imagine that ever working at any company I've worked at.
I just looked up Deno and it’s part of an NPM stack.
It's not. It supports NPM modules for backwards compatibility, but the whole point is that it doesn't inherit the NPM tooling mess. You can go from a new Linux install to a running Fresh project in 3 commands.
Yeah possible, but this of the amount of effort that would take!
Right but in practice nobody really uses the Windows store, and winget, chocolatey etc. are only used by geeks. For normal users it's always
On Linux you have:
Also it's relatively common for Linux software not to bundle its dependencies. I work for a company that makes commercial Linux software and they bundle Python (yes it's bad), but that depends on libffi and they don't bundle that. So it only works on distros that happen to have the specific ABI version of libffi that it requires. And you have to install it yourself. This is obviously dumb but it's the sort of thing you have to deal with on Linux that is simply never an issue on Windows or Mac.