good morning, fuck ethics
good morning [cw george lucas]
good morning, I don’t know Spanish, what does this say
good morning [cw lisa simpson is sonic the hedgehog]
ugh, good morning [cw misogynistic paperclip]
good morning from my prickly new chubby son 🌵
good morning, shout out to running water
good morning, here’s my new guitar
how do I know it’s mine?
it has my name on it 🤗
good morning, here's Dave
good morning [cw cat tongue]
good morning, I just love Monday mornings because I get to catch up on all my emailsssssss
morning [cw ec]
good morning [cw drugs]
good morning, Dave has decided to sleep in ❤️
good morning [cw Stalin, Microsoft, notch]
good morning, this is my panda plant 🐼🌱
Good morning, can anyone confirm that shrink-wrapped bread is unique to America? Why do this? [cw food]
good morning, I found this guide to using `tar` very helpful [cw screaming Arnold Schwarzenegger face]
good morning to the profound absurdity and existential horror I found on my way out the door of my apartment building this morning [cw ec]
good morning, the horror van is parked outside again [cw ec]
good morning, ever heard of a roomba?
good morning, let's check in on how the normies are doing... [cw pol]
good morning. props to Java developers for having such a good sense of humour about their, quite frankly, horrifying language
@ashfurrow The language is simple enough. The ecosystem and API ("standard library") are pure insanity.
Every so often a new solution comes along that has everyone jump on a bandwagon and sing hallelujah! But it hides the fact that at its base language design level, java makes O.O.P. really, really hard and cumbersome.
@aeveltstra that's an interesting perspective. If I may ask, isn't that the goal of the JVM as a compile target? So that languages like Scala and Clojure can take advantage of Java's popularity without having to use the actual syntax?
(Not that Scala isn't a difficult language, too!)
@aeveltstra gotcha, that makes sense. Do you think this is why we (I) hear more success stories with languages compiling to the .Net CLR than compiling to the JVM? Because it was designed to be agnostic to languages from the start? (Not that it doesn't have to be hacky about adding support for new constructs, too.)
@ashfurrow I have on-hands experience with several .Net languages. Yes: the CLR does not appear to suffer the exact same issues. It suffers whole other ones.
Inside Powershell for instance, we can mix paradigms in the same script: functional, o.o., procedural, and maybe event-driven too (legacy VB was event-driven and moved from procedural to o.o. over time) - 1/2
But depending of the version of your script engine and the source version of an invoked library, Powershell may force us to employ a different, unwanted paradigm. And apart from finding a different library to invoke, there's literally nothing we can do.
That is not Powershell's fault, as far as I could determine, but the CLR. - 2/2
@aeveltstra interesting – I hadn't realized the different paradigms targeting the same runtime would add such complexity!
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!