Kotlin seams fun
It is. Also *seems
A pointer?
To a dictionary
Related: Every
Fnkey on a keyboard is a missed opportunity! That’s not fun at all!
okay, now i gotta figure out how to start a keyboard rave when i press fn
Anyone tried lisp? Looks something like this. ((()))()())))
Remarkable how if the parenthesis is shifted from
lambda()to(lambda), people lose the ability to comprehend things.
Not sure I’d call what bash has functions. They’re closer to subroutines in Basic than functions in other languages, as in you can’t return a value from them (they can only return their exit code, and you can capture their stdout and stderr). But even then, they are full subshells. It’s one of the reasons I don’t really like Bash, you’re forced into globally or at least broadly-scoped variables. Oh, and I have no clue right now how to find where in your pipe you got a non-null exit code.
It’s not a big problem for simple scripting, but it makes things cumbersome once you try to do more.
I really like bash when dealing with even somewhat advanced scripting. Like the 300 LOC scraper I have written over the past two days which horribly parses HTML files using grep | sed.
It’s genuinely so much more fun to do this with Bash than, say, Python. I have once written a scraper using Beautifulsoup and I have no desire to do so ever again.
Honestly, only Haskell manages to beat Bash in how satisfying it feels when you manage to get something working well.
Bash has its upsides too, like the fact that it has arrays / lists and dictionaries / hashmaps. In my opinion, it gets iffy though when you need to do stuff with IFS; at that point one might be better off just using specialized tools.
Not saying working bash isn’t good enough, but it can break in very surprising ways is my experience.
Functions are definitely not subshells in Bash, seeing as anything modifying the environment, like
pyenvand such, is implemented as functions instead of scripts — specifically because functions are run in the same shell instance.Unless ‘subshell’ means something in the vein of ‘like a new shell, but not really’.
def ():is pretty niceEdit: also as someone doing a bunch of CI work right now, Bash can GTFO (unless the alternative is whatever Windows is doing)
Nushell is pretty nice. It’s the good parts of “what Microsoft is doing”, i.e. real structured data in a shell-like language and real error handling.
also better to type with one hand
You QWERTY people…
/jk
Colemak is great though
function: ... goto function;Or perhaps
call functionif you’ve got a call stack going.Nevermind that is C or something right? Otherwise it would be
jmp function?Yeah that’s C.
I added the
gototo put emphasis on the function being a label instead of a real function.
() => {}
Best no contest
Meanwhile Haskell:
=
Kotlin also lets you do
fun x() = y()I have no idea why you’d need that especially since return y() is pretty easy, but… I want it!
(Actually, I guess a super simple way of overloading a method, like fun x() = x(defaultValue) could be neat)
This can also be a side product for code blocks being expressions instead of statements.
In rust for example they are, so it’s not rare to see functions like:
fn add_one(x: i32) -> i32 { x+1 }This lets you do amazing things like:
let x = if y < 0.0 { 0.0 } else { y }which is the same as
x = y < 0.0 ? 0.0 : yBut is much better for more complex logic. So you can forget about chaining 3-4 ternary operations in a single line.
Lisp programmers seeing these ‘amazing things’:
But yeah, every time I’m trying to do a ternary in Lua, I miss being able to just throw in an
if. Thankfully it can be amended with Fennel.
C++ has
[]{}.(You can also add more brackets if you wish to do nothing longer:
[]<>[[]]()[[]]{}())C++ [](){} looks nice.
funcitonIdk why but that’s how I type it half the time.
Won’t you take me to
funcitooon?
Won’t you take me to
funcitoon.
()=>{}Javascript straddling the middle as usual.
The equivalent in JavaScript / TypeScript would actually be
function () {}, this is the syntax for named functions.C# is the same as bash though.
It’s object-oriented; you can assign this to a named variable.
In that case the full thing would be
const fun = () => {}Yeah for whatever reason, FE devs want to make everything a const. It’s like a religious belief or something, it’s really kinda weird.
const fun = () => { const something = “whatever” const array = []; array.push(someting)
for (const thing of array) { if (thing === ‘whatever’) blah(thing) } }
Semicolons? Optional. Which quotes you should use? Whatever you feel like! But you must declare things as a const wherever possible! Even if it’s an array that you’re going to be changing, declare it as a const because you should know that you can push things into a const array, and since it’s possible to declare it as a const, you must declare it as a const.
Why is this? Nobody knows, but it’s important to FE devs that you use const.
semicolons? quotes? use a formatter and don’t think about it. I think js world has basically done this already.
const is simpler. why would I declare an array as
letif I’m not reassigning? someone can look at it and know they don’t have to think about reassignment of the reference, just normal mutation. ts has the furtherreadonlyto describe the other type of mutation, don’t abuseletto mean that.const arrow over named function? gets rid of all the legacy behaviors and apis. no
arguments, consistentthis, and no hoisting or accidental reassignment. the 2 places you should ever use named fn are generator or if you actually needthissemicolons? quotes? use a formatter and don’t think about it. I think js world has basically done this already.
It’s nice when a codebase has sane formatter conventions. I can’t say that my workplace does, tho…
const arrow over named function? gets rid of all the legacy behaviors and apis. no
arguments, consistentthis, and no hoisting or accidental reassignment. the 2 places you should ever use named fn are generator or if you actually need `thisHow is having
argumentsandthisan issue? If one doesn’t need them, then it can be just left unused. I really don’t get this argument. It makes everything visually a variable. I see no benefit to this convention and actively despise it.Stylistically, you’re changing the array when you add something to it. Javascript is a janky language in the best of times, but FE devs like to artificially introduce additional unnecessary complexities on top of the jank.
const is simpler. why would I declare an array as let if I’m not reassigning?
Why would you declare a const that’s going to have different data every time to function is called?
Now I’m thinking it’s a form of gatekeeping. Just an excuse for FE devs to throw out terms like “immutable” to make it sound like they know what they’re taking about. Y’all need to constantly sound like you know what you’re talking about when dealing with users, pretending weird stylistic choices have real technical reasons for them. But the BE devs know what you’re saying is complete bullshit LOL.
You are literally just describing the conceptual differences between functional programming and object oriented programming. It has nothing to do with front end vs backend, except for the fact that React has vastly popularized functional paradigms on the frontend.
You should keep an open mind, functional programming is basically what object oriented programming looks like if you were to actually follow all the SOLID principles.
The reason is very simple, performance. If a value doesn’t need to be changed, don’t declare it as mutable. This isn’t just a front-end thing btw.
Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.
And if you’re declaring a const within the scope of a function, it’s still allocating memory when it enters the scope and disposing it when it leaves the scope, same as a variable. There’s no performance benefit to do this.
Something like const CONSTANT_VALUE = “This never changes” has a performance benefit and is actually how other languages use constants. The value will always be the same, the compiler understands this and can optimize accordingly. If you’re declaring an iterator or the result of calling a webservice to be const it’ll be a different value every time it runs that code, so it’s not something a compiler can optimize. In style terms, it’s a value that’s different every time you get to that line of code, so why would you want to call it constant?
You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work. But of course many religious beliefs originate from a misunderstanding of the world. Whatever man, I just make it a const to make the linter happy, because it’s dumb FE bullshit LOL.
Lol.
Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.
So you’re arguing for writing things as they seem, not the way that computers treat them?
You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work.
Maybe rethink this.
What, are we code golfing?
Sure. Use :() :;: to score every hole-in-one all at once.
