See the above? This is what codecamps do to innocent people. They prey on the weak, act authoritative, and take advantage of their hopes of getting jobs.
You should demand your money back, every penny.
> I can only look to my choice of bootcamp
Bootcamps are not gatekeepers. They portray themselves as such to take your money.
There's no such thing as an elite bootcamp. It's a lie to pray on your naïveté of the industry. It's just ruby and javascript. It's web development. Nothing magic. Nothing elite here. You could teach it in a community college setting for 2k a semester.
But every town needs electricians, plumbers, doctors, etc.
It's just frankly, we're pouring out more junior programmers desperate for jobs than there are positions to fill. Every time a cohort finishes, it's 30 more people on top of the thousands of others seeking a handful of positions.
They end up creating junior level programmers, and cherrypicking success stories from people who have already coded before.
Maybe you would be a good programmer if you continued studying, maybe it's not your path.
I don't know you, but don't be fooled into thinking that any institution or person is a gatekeeper from you coding and getting a job in it. These code camps want you to believe that so they can justify their existence.
We banned you quite explicitly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14529059), because you violated the HN guidelines repeatedly. That's not allowed here. Personal attacks are particularly unwelcome.
I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not of the opinion that I do not have the ability or the skill set. I have been a finalist for various positions (full-stack developer, web developer, project manager, product manager, front-end dev) for 16 companies over the last year - all have which have rejected me on my inexperience in technology. That's not to mention the many many more that I interviewed with that I did not become a finalist. I know I can work in tech. I know I can make things become a great technical professional. I'm constantly learning and adding to my skill set, my problem is I need an income. What you're giving is resources for learning above, but that is not where my choke point is.
I was never under the impression that I needed to go to a coding bootcamp to learn how to code. I wanted to go to one to immerse myself in an industry that I did not have previous exposure to.
> I have been a finalist for various positions (full-stack developer, web developer, project manager, product manager, front-end dev) for 16 companies over the last year
That might part of the problem - project manager and product manager are not nearly the same skill set, and I would argue that they might even be incompatible skill sets in one given individual.
You might better served by focusing on one area, say front end (if that's your thing) or data processing, etc.
OK, so you're sincere. You have a genuine intellectual interest. Good heart. And an honest worker.
But the brutal world of supply and demand, no one cares about your feelings, honesty, or character. Which is why you are, in my opinion, a victim of code camps.
Did you ever read there was a skill gap for programmers? A shortage of programmers? You were lied to. Completely and totally.
> my problem is I need an income. What you're giving is resources for learning above, but that is not where my choke point is.
And here's the problem with that. Codecamps are also destroying the job market on a macro level too.
We're placing, what, 1000 new junior javascript/ruby grads into the job seeking pool every 16 weeks?
That's stacked on top of what, thousand of other code camp grads who didn't land a job?
And how many positions do you think there is to fill? Maybe in USA, 500 or 800, and most of those want prior work experience.
Not to mention that employers are using H1B's as a way to get cheap labor. There's no end in sight.
You should demand your money back, contact the FCC and a lawyer.
Very interesting take on the matter. I try not to take a victim's mentality on the matter, but you do have very true points. Thank you for your comments.
I got paid to learn to program. 45k a yr to start off with. Then 70k a few months later.
You don't need to pay a school to learn to code.
The sad truth is, there are recruiters who will throw out your resume if you associate with bootcamps. Why? Because the quality of the programmers they generate is low.
Code camps run like mills. From stories I've heard, they pay instructors as contractors below market rate (20-50k, long long hours) and throw them away with no severance.
That's not even to speak about those who forked over $16,000 you'll never hear of here because they're too embarrassed and afraid they'll get jumped.
Worse, try mentioning anything critical on Bootcamps and they'll create sock puppet accounts to downvote you, harass you and so on.
If you don't believe me, go on /r/cscareerquestions or quora threads mentioning bootcamps. They'll have coursereport.com shilling and trying to keep you from the reality:
>"The sad truth is, there are recruiters who will throw out your resume if you associate with bootcamps.Why? Because the quality of the programmers they generate is low.
>Code camps run like mills. From stories I've heard, they pay instructors as contractors below market rate (20-50k, long long hours) and throw them away with no severance."
Bootcamp grad here who mentioned it prominently in my resume and blogged my experience and put up a YouTube video once a week while I was going through. I'm not sure who filters out bootcamp grads, but I can say Google, FB, Apple, Netflix, and many many YC companies reached out to me repeatedly and I ended up working at a YC startup.
Maybe the companies tossing out non-traditional candidates are actually the same companies that wouldn't be that great to work for to begin with.
I did my masters in Computer Science (graduated cum laude) and am currently in the third year of my PhD. I applied for a few companies but I am having trouble getting through the coding tests, which are sometimes very practically oriented (Android and iOS). Maybe I am not skilled enough as a programmer, or the companies tests are not suitable for me, or the companies themselves are not suitable for me, but I believe I would have a better chance of getting hired if I had the practical experience these companies are looking for. Your advice about reading Cracking the Coding Interview is spot on, however I would say a bootcamp aimed at studying exactly that book would be very beneficial for landing a job.
Why do you think you're having trouble? Presumably you know at least 1 language well and can build shit? Are you looking for competitive jobs and are you trying very hard? In my experience a lot of people get jobs through networks so I wonder if you are quite qualified, feel competent you can do (or learn quickly) the job but simply can't get the opportunity. I feel that way.
I went to a boot camp, know a few languages fairly well, can do a lot with a computer. I think certainly more than enough for entry level. I am trying to break in myself, once "in" I think I could carry entry/jr workloads but getting in is hard
I guess the jobs I am applying for are rather competitive. I study in Japan and I am applying for jobs here which are open for those who do not speak business level Japanese, and there aren't many jobs like that.
I've build pretty significant systems. A few years ago I was working as an ASP.NET WebForms/MVC developer and recently I've been working on a web based visual programming tool using NodeJS and a graph database.
Something just didn't sit right with me about this post and it took me a while to find it.
> The sad truth is, there are recruiters who will throw out your resume if you associate with bootcamps.
Is there _anyone_ in this industry that needs to actively seek out recruiters? The only people I know with strong relationships with recruiters are either at the top of this field or the bottom.
Outside of a couple that I know are good, I don't even really take their calls. Easily 10+ new LI connection requests from recruiters every day.
I don't need proof. Different companies are skewing for different metrics in their interviewing.
Some companies like to skew heavily in favor of academic computer science knowledge. It's a bias that they have and it may or may not be the correct one. Google skews this way, but Google also interviews and hires bootcamp grads. I also know plenty of bootcamp grads with strong academic computer science knowledge, but in general this is not the case.
That said, throwing out a resume for the sole reason that you saw someone attended a bootcamp regardless of what else they know, have done and are capable of, which is what you are insinuating, is totally stupid and possibly a bit deranged. Whoever is doing that shouldn't have input in hiring. Anywhere.
From what I saw of people in my cohort and the few after it, the entry point is usually a bit higher, like where someone with a college degree + 1-2 years enters.
Disclaimer: my school was a very intense 6-day/week, 10-14 hours per day for a total of 900 or so hours. This is a lot more coding than people tend to think when they hear 3 months and there are instructors and classmates helping with the actual coding process.
I just read hn. My outcome was great, and that is my response to the poster's question. If you have any meaningful contribution about your experience at a bootcamp, please feel free to share.
I've never heard of their products before. And they've been around for a heck of a long time in these boards with these salaries, and there was no SEC Form D's back then.
> Hand-optimized assembly drawing routines for arm6/7
> Create a particle engine which maps to webgl shaders, pure Javascript, or optimized C
> Rebuild backwards compatible Android APIs
> Context-aware code parser for automatic internationalization & localization code parser
> Analytics platform, terabytes of data every week, real-time processing.
> Scale real-time notifications and chat to hundreds of millions of game players
> Create a particle engine which maps to webgl shaders, pure Javascript, or optimized C
> js.io is a new IDE for HTML5 Apps / Games, AR, VR, Minecraft mods, Arduino, IoT, and more, targeting javascript as a common language. We provide developers their own persistent container, a beautiful end-to-end development experiences, r remote-over-LTE (sic) debugging, one click publishing, and carefully polished community support. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12204213
So... where's the IDE for Minecraft mods, Arduino, IoT... it seems to be an IDE that does everything! Through javascript, remember: "Cross-compiling javascript to other languages and vice versa". OK? Where is it? https://github.com/blackstormlabs? https://github.com/weebygames? I see forked repos of Flask and React. How is that going to get you transpiling for Minecraft mods, arduino and IoT? Let alone the abstraction to the API's.
> js.io is a multi-platform package management and module system for JavaScript. js.io modules can be evaluated in a JavaScript runtime (e.g. node.js) or precompiled into a single package for use on the client side.
It hasn't been updated in over a year, but it does have 600+ stars. No sign of the millions of players, no hand-optimized asm drawing routines, context-aware code parsers or terabyte analytic platforms.
Nothing adds up.
I look forward to an explanation of where these SEC filings for Game Closure, Weeby and Blackstorm are at. Also, where are the "terabytes of data every week, real-time processing" analytics. The "hundreds of millions of game players". Where are the hard core "Hand-optimized assembly drawing routines".
Could you explain the discrepancy or please correct your salary information so people don't waste their time interviewing when it's not your intention to fit the salary you specified?
Not trying to cause a scene, but interviewed for a few places with high salaries and after sincerely following their interview process, realized they were just giving a widely inflated salary to get resumes in.
It may be a "junior" engineer. But still, you're posting 140k as a minimum range in the post currently when glassdoor says 97k and DoL says 102k.
Maybe I'm mistaken. Not making accusations, just want to give you a chance to clarify things.
I interviewed with them and received an offer in the past.
They changed their name from Weeby (weeby.co) to Blackstorm.
They claimed the same salary range and said they would "meet" my requirements. They ended up offering 120k which was far below my requirement and wasted a lot of my time and energy with them.
I'd stay away from them. When I asked them about the low ball offer, they claimed I could earn "raises" every month, all the way up to 220k.
I commented about them before on another "Who's Hiring" thread but it appears their comment has disappeared. How interesting...
Despite 15 years of programming experience in python, js, C, etc. I feel like I'm going to have to duck my head down to be chastised for not understanding the language and not being "intelligent" enough to see the depth.
It looks like jibberish, to me. Not trying to be offensive. I'm sure the person who written it had it make sense to them. You likely also notice, a lack of code documentation. Bad form. Don't tell me it's because I don't know haskell, that's why I'm not expending the time to learn it, despite the buzz.
Meanwhile, SQLAlachemy and Hibernate isn't reporting complaints and a human being could actually parse it to understand what the hecks going on there. And despite it being Python or Java - easier and far more widely adopted languages - they're documented extensively, the authors didn't solipsistically assume others would "get it".
Which is a pattern I've been seeing with hardcore functional advocates in communities. They are the kind of people who'd work 2 weeks on a paper for a mathematical proof, shove it to you in the hallway to look smart, and say "It's obvious". It's not, you're just trying to show you're smart, but no one's understanding you - and that is important in you winning people over and not looking arrogant.
> It's concise for the amount of functionality it offers
Make it 4 times as many lines. Because there is so much condensed inside of this.
>8k stars. Less than 50 contributors. Of which, only the top 7 changes more than 100 lines.
If this considered a real world haskell, it's no wonder there's not a lot of people using it.
It does more to demonstrate functional programmers lack empathy for enterprise ones. Because even with solid grasp of CS concepts, even Haskell's own proponents are having a hard time stomaching contributing to it.
> It's hard to read. [...] Despite 15 years of programming experience in python, js, C, etc. I feel like I'm going to have to duck my head down to e chastised for not understanding the language. [...] Don't tell me it's because I don't know haskell, that's why I'm not expending the time to learn it, despite the buzz.
To me you're a classic example of the "Blub Paradox" [1]: languages with other features/language constructs than you're used to just seem worthless, complex, without value and foreign to you.
You mention a lot of experience in hardcore imperative/imperative-OOP languages (C, JS, Python). Haskell, Rust, Scala etc. require a bit of a different mindset and thus have an initial steep learning curve.
Compare it to lamda's. Did you see the value in anonymous functions the very first time you were introduced to the concept? Now that you've probably used them for a while, would you be happy to use a programming language without them?
You're not willing to learn the language because you don't understand it, and dismiss the language as having no value because you don't understand it. Is that really fair without at least having a basic understanding of the language?
[1] http://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox / http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html . I'm not a fan of the "I Know LISP So I'm Better Than You" tone of the original article, but I do fully agree with the key point that it's hard to evaluate language constructs you're not used to.
Not because it's something I don't understand at the concept level (there isn't anything complicated there), but because of the formatting and general lack of comments.
Maybe I'm talking about bike shed color, but it could be much better just by having some extra newlines that separate the pieces of list comprehension expression.
The "blub paradox" argument isn't a very good argument. It's effectively a gradeschool style ad hominem wrapped in fancier clothing.
Also, I don't think his criticism is of the "blub" mold anyhow. It seems to me more like it's criticism of the particular codebase's documentation, although it does seem to stretch into a hasty generalization about "all Haskell".
I don't agree that blub is an ad-hominem,or even a fallacy.
Blub basically says "you need to be proficient in X before you can see value in X, this if you are not proficient in X you won't see it's value". You can disagree with the statement, but there's no logical fallacy there.
> languages with other features/language constructs than you're used to just seem worthless, complex, without value and foreign to you.
Document the Haskell code and not stuff so much logic into one line. I think that's a fair thing to ask for in software engineering.
Anyone who complains about Haskell seems to have either a.) not programmed it b.) weren't programming "correctly" c.) a xenophobe/blub/NOS
I know what lambdas are, I know there are functions and folds. That in and of itself doesn't tell the story of the data that's actually being manipulated and the expected output. So that's why you have a 20-30 line comment block explaining what's going on in important API functions.
You could program python, JS or ruby similarly; wrapping multiple functions on the same line until you have to actually trial each function to figure out why your not getting an expected result. It feels clever, at the moment, but we don't do it because we're not helping colleagues understand it.
> You're not willing to learn the language because you don't understand it, and dismiss the language as having no value because you don't understand it. Is that really fair without at least having a basic understanding of the language?
The commenter was heralding the project as a "great example" of "real-world haskell" and recommended contributing to it. I was shocked to see 8k stars and a paltry 50 contributors; of which, only the top 10 have contributed over 100 lines of code. That's half the contributors, proportionally, to something like neovim or redis, and even worse compared to node.js projects.
And, I looked at the code of the project, which is open source, and didn't see code documentation.
I'm trying to be generous. My advice: stop packing the code so close and document it, probably more than normal, since the symbology in their is highly dense.
It's not like putting the code on one line. It's like complaining about using map instead of a for loop but you don't know the abstractions.
There's a line of too much abstraction, and lots of.haskell code crossed it, but the postgres code ive looked at doesn't seem to suffer from it.
Also I really hate the types are documentation people, but I mean it's hard to argue with it for asking about what transformation is happening.
Edit: also if be surprised if those numbers are all that bad if you consider the size of the codebase but yeah it's hard to get contributors to a Haskell code base.
"If this considered a real world javascript/node, it's no wonder there's not a lot of people using it." which is obviously wrong.
You are using the wrong metrics to judge the language popularity. Virtually every OSS project has only a handful of core contributors.
PS1: Note that i am not arguing PostgREST is a great example of real world haskell, it's not for me to say since i have bias :)
PS2: You are right that the source code is not commented and it could use a little of that but what you are missing (because you are not used to haskell) is that a lot of the documentation for haskell projects comes from the types and type signature of the functions. So just by looking at that, in a lot of cases, a haskell programmer can reliably tell what the function is doing without any documentation
It's indefensible to have code that tightly compacted, throwing functions around and not documented.
Don't care if it's Python (basically pseudocode), Javascript, Haskell or Erlang.
For all the time Haskell commenters turn criticism into a Socratic dialog, they could be considering ways to make their code digestable. It's been what, 20 years now?
Not just to non-haskell programmers, but all the haskell programmers I see swarming around threads like these on the internet; you'd think they'd actually be teaming up and collaborating with each other. I can't put my finger on it, I think there's a trend, a feeling, that it's not suitable for programmers focused on achieving business ends. It's more of a hobby thing
Programming in the enterprise means confronting the reality that there are design trade-offs and someone else has to read the code. Haskell programmers seem to go off the deep end trying to pull off a hack of making haskell work a certain way, then its "pencils down", sayonara. The real world doesn't accept that, programs have to be maintained by others.
I have a (non-contributor) experience with the PostgREST codebase. It's true PostgREST codebase is not great (lots of long functions, need some work to extract the main program into a library etc.) but the codebase definitely is easy to navigate and modify. For a transient project at work I've asked a dev to evaluate how much work it would be to port PostgREST to MSSQL. My dev had a working proof-of-concept in a few days.
The bottleneck was not navigating and patching PostgREST codebase but dealing with MSSQL. We decided to go another route only for the lack of a native MSSQL driver in Haskell: there's an ODBC driver (which my dev used for his PoC) but I don't really trust ODBC+FreeTDS. Hence, we'll write a good-old C# binary with a Microsoft-blessed driver to expose the few ad-hoc queries our own team needs rather than a generic solution for the whole company and we'll move on.
In short, I have some data invalidating your argument about the PostgREST code style being indefensible. Although I don't enjoy PostgREST codebase I love the product because it delivers what the website claims. Rather than diminishing the hard work of devs using a throwaway/slandering account, I just reckon that Haskell and "ship it culture" are reconcilable.
I also did something similar to postgREST for MSSQL in java, not in haskell because of the same driver issues you mentioned. I managed to implement jwt auth pgREST style taking advantage of MSSQL user impersonation though I did jumped into some limitations, for example the lack of enviroment variables in transaction scope in MSSQL forces you to have to declare one db user for an app user.
I have little experience in Haskell despite that it was easy for me to understand the gist of what postgREST does and port it to java.
Some lines are indeed atrociously long. No Haskell programmer I know would advocate this. I think the project maintainer should insist on sane code formatting. All the critical lines I checked were from contributors.
Other than that, I think the case you are trying to make here is largely imaginary. That is not to say that the project couldn't use some more source level documentation, but that you do not see how not actually knowing the language in syntax and semantic and never having written any code in it could possibly cloud your judgement on the comprehensibility, pretty much says all about your case, if you ask me. (I hope that sentence wasn't to long, if you ask nicely I'll add some documentation)
Why is it not ok to be complicated/complex if it's worth it? People do not complain about the complexity of a car compared to a cart, it's just doing much much more. It's ok to want a cart for whatever reason but I don't understand why then you have to say that a car is bad?
A lot of people are happy writing Haskell. In fact they seem to like it so much that they would kill for a Haskell job!
How much more does Haskell do compared to other languages? Does it posses some unique properties which puts it high above other languages?
Back to cart and car comparison: despite several levels of magnitude difference in complexity the difference in complexity to operate is not that great. That is, you are not directly exposed to the underlying complexity. Meanwhile programming languages should be optimised for reading first.
> Meanwhile programming languages should be optimised for reading first.
Interesting, because I totally disagree with this. My preference is for programs designed for safety and amenability to static analysis first. Maybe there's a reason I'm not a Python dev anymore=)
It's more about familiarity with the abstractions provided by the language.
Sure, the complexity difference in operating a cart vs a car is not that big. But if someone has never seen a car or familiarized themselves with how to operate one then the perceived complexity is going to be enormous.
Arguably, A person who is familiar with the operation of a cart would be at least somewhat familiar with the operation of a car in that they both roll in a specific direction based on user input.
That said, the complexity of operation in a car arises from increasing the number of controls from 1 to, at minimum, 10. I would say the cart to car analogy is more akin to learning a complex API.
I would say that a better analogy for traditional languages vs. Haskell is that of a car to a fighter jet. The fighter jet is faster and really really good at certain things like movement on 2 planes and firing missiles. However, the fighter jet is orders of magnitude more difficult to operate and requires much more maintenance. For real world concerns such as getting groceries or transporting furniture, a car is the much more practical choice. I mean, we'd all love to own a fighter jet, but would any of us really have a use for it other than screwing around?
On one hand I would want to argue with you ... because for me this [1] is arguably more readable, than i.e. java code-base. But I haven't done anything in Java for ~5 years. And I have worked through a haskell text-book recently :-)
On the other hand, I heard somebody say "Haskell program file usually consists of 10 language extensions, 20 imports, and 1 line of Perl" and I understand the sentiment :-)
Golang irritates people for various reasons. For some reason I've begun to feel the language is was partly designed to put prima donnas who push theoretical languages in blogs all day rather than ship in their place.
These Haskell and Scala people talk talk talk all about correctness and syntax tricks. Meanwhile golang is nimble and just winning every race. I wish they'd learn from it rather than get so defensive.
Also, it's just a confirmation people get too attached to complicated features in languages as a crutch. YAGNI
Programming can be straight-forward and clear. Without it spiraling into a contest of clever tricks. You look clever when you get product out the door.
I've been programming 10 years professionally, and 15 years as a hobby. I've yet to hear what a sum type is until yesterday.
I got nothing wrong with people dabbling and hacking on the weekend, but sometimes it irks me when people split hairs over being "correct" and never actually get stuff done.
I think a lot of the "syntax tricks" is a mechanism used by people to feel superior. It's like, "hey if I can't actually build something useful, at least I can blog about how to write a monad transformer".
I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just failing to see the value in this and trying to make sense of what I'm seeing. Where was the business issue that could only be solved through sum types in the language syntax? Enlighten me.
In our code, we have a closed interface type with many variants, not unlike an AST. We frequently add new variants to that interface. It is nice to have a tool tell us which parts of the code need updating to account for the new variant. This tool does that. It trivially reduces bugs and saves development time.
If you think people like me "don't get stuff done," then please, take a stroll through my Github. ;-)
Speaking from my own experience, I don't have the opportunity to use them, rather I have to use the language with less features in the work place. The articles are meant to persuade people into using languages with more features. I feel at home with FP, HKT, and ADTs, actually I'm out of my comfort zone without them.
When I look at a programming language, I look at the community and how it gets stuff done and projects that are noteworthy.
Something about Haskell strikes me as different. Despite the buzz about it, I don't see many projects for it other than shellcheck, pandoc and xmonad, and for two of those, there's better solutions around (sphinx, awesome/i3).
The other thing is the general flow I've see with Haskell programmers, many really tie down their identity do it. They see programming as a crossword puzzle for them to solve in short term, not as something other programmers have to read later on. They're not very empathetic to the idea the runways dwindling and you have to ship sooner rather than later.
In addition, I found that the Scala / Haskell developers I knew took golang to be quite the nuisance. They find gophers pesky. I think the reason why is years of Haskell teaches them to overengineer and complicate things needlessly. It's frustrating because they're not aware of it themselves and take offense, even blame you when you point it out to them.
Maybe I've just been unlucky. In 10 years, I've never had people who consistently failed to ship, been mean and arrogant as scala / haskell programmers. They take the slight criticism as an assault on their identity.
> Despite the buzz about it, I don't see many projects for it other than shellcheck, pandoc and xmonad, and for two of those, there's better solutions around (sphinx, awesome/i3)
I tried awesome for two weeks and had one crash. I've run XMonad for 5+ years and had no crashes. Just because they are supposed to accomplish the same things does not mean that they're equal. One is better and it's because of the choice of language.
It's very hard to take your post seriously when you include something like this in it and you don't bother to qualify it even in the slightest.
> One is better and it's because of the choice of language.
> It's very hard to take your post seriously when you include something like this in it and you don't bother to qualify it even in the slightest.
I looked in your history and yup, you are partial to Haskell. Why do you feel a need to immediately judge. Why did you say "hard to take seriously". Why didn't you just ask politely for more details? In my opinion, you already had your mind made up. Just like the blog poster did.
> I tried awesome for two weeks and had one crash. I've run XMonad for 5+ years and had no crashes.
That's your personal anecdote. There's no evidence that the language could have prevented the crash.
And that doesn't make the window manager "better", which is subjective. What are more people using? Awesome and i3. Primarily because they don't want to deal with Haskell when they could be doing lua or a simple config.
> I looked in your history and yup, you are partial to Haskell.
It's convenient that you have no post history to go through, since you decided that the nonsense you're posting shouldn't be tied to your real account.
Your bias is astounding, yet you go for the "your mind was already made up" card. I like Haskell but by no means am I tied to any single language and I'm not the one making posts about how all the users of a language seem to have undesirable traits.
Even better, you then criticize using "personal anecdotes", when that's exactly what you did in order to condemn the users of two languages. You half-dampen it by saying "Maybe I'm just unlucky", but the entire point of your post is "these two communities suck".
> That's your personal anecdote. There's no evidence that the language could have prevented the crash.
Any ML-family compiler will catch more crap at compile time than any C compiler. Adding lua on top will not solve any of that. None of that is opinion. It's just how the languages are designed and how they use types. Adding automatic memory management to that makes the gap even wider and in short, that stops the vast majority of crashes that you can get.
C + lua is great for lots of things, but everything is a tradeoff and here the tradeoff is that you're very likely to get crashes. Good intentions alone can't prevent segfaults and most C software is proof of that.
If it were node.js, I highly doubt I'd have a person coming out of the woodwork with cleverly placed quotes as if it's a legal threat.
Then blaming me for being biased as if you don't already have a conclusion derived. This is the behavior I experienced - to me, this feels like projection and trying to bully me into silencing what I truly witnessed. It really bothers me and makes me uncomfortable.
I'm just stating my experiences. You wanna know why I use a throwaway? Because people bully and bludgeon anyone who doesn't praise Haskell and / or Scala. And it's been unique to those language communities.
At the end of the day, your reaction is predictable. I'm not reading too deeply into what you say because, like my prior experiences, I think you have your mind up, and in spite or proof given, you're going to be on the defense / offense.
> Any ML-family compiler will catch more crap at compile time than any C compiler...
None of these things about language mattered since awesome and i3 had language as an afterthought and focused on experience. xmonad literally has haskell mentioned as a feature, the token battlestation pic (which is pretty cool) even has a haskell book next to it. Xmonad even uses haskell for the configuration of it.
Look, not trying to take a jab at hobbyists. It's just I'm saying, in my experience, I found Haskell and scala "hobbyists" to be quite mean and it hurt my feelings alot, especially when I dropped, far more politely than when they ever spoke to me, the news they're not focused on business goals and work product and just refactoring stuff over and over. They kind of failed at bringing product vision to light, even basic things like defining requirements felt beneath them. Again, maybe I've just been unlucky.
>You're proving my point. If it were node.js, I highly doubt I'd have a person coming out of the woodwork with cleverly placed quotes as if it's a legal threat.
The irony is that you came out to defend Go from any sort of criticism without any direct argument as to why Haskell is bad. Your post talks about the people who use it and criticizes them for criticizing other programmers, yet that reflects perfectly on what you are doing. And yes, I am also defending Haskell when I see your comment. I'm sure Node.js programmers would defend Node.js. Programmers care about their language choice as much as they care about their text editor/IDE choice, and it's something that we all love to argue about.
>At the end of the day, your reaction is predictable. I'm not reading too deeply into what you say because, like my prior experiences, I think you have your mind up, and in spite or proof given, you're going to be on the defense / offense.
So you haven't made up your mind already by criticizing Haskell before even evaluating it as a language? It's not making up your mind on it when you based all your judgements from personal anecdotes of Haskell and Scala programmers you've met before?
>xmonad literally has haskell mentioned as a feature
AwesomeWM lists Lua as a feature [1]. Maybe Haskell programmers care about that a bit more strongly, but both groups use their configuration language as a feature. Hyper lists JS/HTML/CSS as a feature as well [2]. Although I would argue the real argument between Haskell and other languages is safety -- just like Rust or Ada programmers would list those languages as a safety feature, Haskell programmers are inclined to do the same. It's pretty similar to saying "code has been tested extensively by our quality assurance team" or something "code has been formally verified," etc.
Also, I looked through your history, you're a Haskell programmer. Due to the context of my thread, I'd appreciate it if you disclosed your relation so others know.
> AwesomeWM lists Lua as a feature
It's a scripting language on top of that's used for configuration.
> It's pretty similar to saying "code has been tested extensively by our quality assurance team" or something "code has been formally verified,"
The problem is Haskell developers aren't really getting enough shipped, especially relative to the advocacy I see of it. So how much does code correctness matter?
Look, let's say I want play FreeCiv. It being programmed in C vs Haskell vs Erlang doesn't mean much to me.
But imagine if FreeCiv lacked basic functionality or code documentation, and when people mentioned these things they'd get jumped by people who advocate it being programmed in an esoteric language who look down on those who program C as unsafe, inefficient, etc.
> So you haven't made up your mind already by criticizing Haskell before even evaluating it as a language? It's not making up your mind on it when you based all your judgements from personal anecdotes of Haskell and Scala programmers you've met before?
Hugo vs Pandoc
Awesome/i3 vs xmonad
You want to know why these solutions got more popular than the their Haskell predecessors? They had devops like documentation and tooling down. They picked languages that were easier to read so the community could participate. The discussion was about how to ship features by a version release, not how to force the language to get a purely internal technical working.
Users can't see the internals, so they don't care. They want something that's there for them on time and reliably. In all these years to this day, there's been more advocating Haskell philosophically on forums than there's been real discussion about getting stuff shipped. Try saying that for node/go/ruby/python.
I am not a Haskell programmer, in fact I am not very fond of the language and have only ever used it for a single project. I find the language interesting, but I disagree with many of the fundamental design decisions and it is never my first choice for a project.
On the other side, I used XMonad for a while and it crashed frequently.
I did submit a bug report and it did get fixed, but there was another crash I couldn't be bothered to try to track down, and just switched back to the standard ubuntu shell.
> I did submit a bug report and it did get fixed, but there was another crash I couldn't be bothered to try to track down, and just switched back to the standard ubuntu shell.
Interesting. What was the bug, if I may ask? Do you have a URL for it and the resolution to it?
What do you mean, you "switched back to the standard Ubuntu shell", exactly? XMonad is a window manager, it has nothing to do with shells.
On top of that, do you mean you switched back to bash, which is the standard shell of most distros, or do you really mean you switched to the standard Ubuntu terminal emulator?
There are a few things that need clarification, as what you've said doesn't make much sense in the context of window managers.
In over 10 years the most productive people I've worked with were able to learn Scala and ship code in Scala quickly, without worrying about whether they would rather be programming Haskell.
You should demand your money back, every penny.
> I can only look to my choice of bootcamp
Bootcamps are not gatekeepers. They portray themselves as such to take your money.
There's no such thing as an elite bootcamp. It's a lie to pray on your naïveté of the industry. It's just ruby and javascript. It's web development. Nothing magic. Nothing elite here. You could teach it in a community college setting for 2k a semester.
But every town needs electricians, plumbers, doctors, etc. It's just frankly, we're pouring out more junior programmers desperate for jobs than there are positions to fill. Every time a cohort finishes, it's 30 more people on top of the thousands of others seeking a handful of positions.
They end up creating junior level programmers, and cherrypicking success stories from people who have already coded before.
> that crushed my dream of working in tech.
Nothing's stopping you from:
- installing Linux (https://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop)
- downloading Atom (https://atom.io)
Using these resources:
- https://github.com/prakhar1989/awesome-courses
- https://github.com/EbookFoundation/free-programming-books/bl...
- https://github.com/ripienaar/free-for-dev
Maybe you would be a good programmer if you continued studying, maybe it's not your path.
I don't know you, but don't be fooled into thinking that any institution or person is a gatekeeper from you coding and getting a job in it. These code camps want you to believe that so they can justify their existence.