arxiv.org is a thing

While you do have a fair point, I was referring to the case where one is basically implementing a map operation as a for loop.

Technically this is also possible with for loops, like with OpenMP

Compiler optimizations like function inlining are your friend.

Especially in functional languages, there are a lot of tricks a compiler can use to output more efficient code due to not needing to worry about possible side effects.

Also, in a lot of cases the performance difference does not matter.

Also surely a lot of people would know tar -Create Ze Vucking File and/or tar -Xtract Ze Vucking File

You mean that instead of having a binary blob you have a generator for the data?

Depends on how deep down the rabbit hole you want to go :p

• creating a new variable that contains the updated value
• recursion (e.g. it’s not possible to make a loop that increments i by 1, but it is possible to turn that loop into a function which calls itself with i+1 as argument)
• avoiding typical types of operations that would update variable values. For example instead of a for loop that updates every element of a list, a functional programmer will use the map function, which takes a list and a function to apply to each element of that list to create an updated list. There’s several more of these very typical functions that are very powerful once you get used to using them.
• monads (I’m not even gonna try to explain them as I hardly grasp them myself)

Dogmatic statements like this lead to bad, messy code. I’m a firm believer that you should use whatever style fits the problem most.

Although I agree most code would be better if people followed this dogma, sometimes mutability is just more clean/idiomatic/efficient/…

In functional programming, everything is seen as a mathematical function, which means for a given input there is a given output and there can be no side effects. Changing a variable’s value is considered a side effect and is thus not possible in pure functional programming. To work around this, you typically see a lot of recursive and higher order functions.

Declaring all values as const values is something you would do if you’re a diehard functional programmer, as you won’t mutate any values anyway.

It’s all learned behaviour. If you grew up with F that makes total sense and C sounds ridiculous. If you grew up with C that’s totally intuitive for anyone, just as much as F, so using a scale that has no point outside of the weather sounds dumb. Neither system is more intuitive by any means. Both systems ave benefits and downsides.

Whenever I talk to americans and they use F I need to convert it because I grew up with C and that just makes more sense to me, even if I know the “0-100 F is according to human experience” thing. Like sure, 80F is hot, but how hot is it? Oh 27C that’s hot but not extreme.

Arguing one or the other is superior is not only pointless but also just silly

Reed hucks = redux Heather net = ethernet

Oh no, strangers on the internet know I had sex and there were dog-like noises! That’s the exact same as people who know me IRL such as family or coworkers! I shall now sink through the ground in shame!

Is that just like the shared memory model of parallel computing or are there any added complications? Have you done this before? Please do share your experiences if so cause now I’m interested :p

FreeRTOS tasks are basically processes, IIRC other rtoses have similar mechanics too

if(condition) statement; Is valid in typical C-style syntax.

if condition { … }

Is invalid in typical C-style syntax

1. That’s behaviour that’s just part of language design. If you rely on it you should probably check how the language you’re using handles it.

2. relying on that behaviour sounds a lot like “clever” (read unnecessarily unreadable) code

Dot in dutch is punt

Did you truly read what I said? The only logical way I can frame your comment is that you glanced at what I wrote down and started writing a reply.

To a regular average windows user, ubuntu is incredibly complicated. When you learm how it works and how you’re supposed to use it, it becomes incredibly easy. The “hard” part of ubuntu is the paradigm shift from windows to the linux ecosystem.

Similarly, to an average linux user nixos is “hard” because it does things completely differently from other linux distros. But once you’re used to it, it just makes sense and is easy.

So the comparison is average windows user -> ubuntu vs average linux user -> nixos. Not average user -> ubuntu vs average user -> nixos.

Finally: Nixos documentation is IMO 100x better than ubuntu documentation. Whenever I experience any issue with ubuntu it’s easier to just load up the arch wiki and hope it’s similar than it is to try and find anything specific for ubuntu that isn’t either 10 years out of date, a massive gaping security risk or just plain dumb. The nixos wiki may not be perfect but it has always been sufficient for my needs, and I have to run a decent amount of very niche pieces of software.

It’s incredibly complicated in the same way that ubuntu is incredibly complicated to a lifelong windows user.

It just requires a bit of a paradigm shift which includes a learning curve but IMO once you’re past that point it’s intuitive and even easier than other distros.

https://nixos.wiki/wiki/Linux_kernel

You can specify custom parts of the config that enables that module and/or extra module packages.

If you specify a custom part of the config then ye sure you’ll be compiling the kernel on each kernel update but you don’t need to manually configure it