Coding Confession: how not to use LINQ
-
The stack is an implementation detail. The compiler could easily precompute all the parameters to
add()that will ever exist and substitute the constant results in place of the calls.
-
I'm being facetious. I hoped that would be fairly obvious. I'll use more trollfaces in the future.
-
Even so...the function owns that part of the stack, so it's all good.
-
Note to self: too many pendants around, do not use jokes that are intentionally getting the point wrong.
-
Note to self: too many pendants around, do
notalways use jokes that are intentionally getting the point wrong.
-
Note to self: too many pendants around, do not use jokes that are intentionally getting the point wrong.
No, just keep in mind you might hang yourself in the process.
Get it...pendant...hang...I'll be over here.
-
Looks pretty pure to me
What about data flushed from Cache?
What about extra data loaded into cache?
What about impact on the pipeline?
What about inter-core synchronization?
What about the radiant heat generated?
What about the electro-magnetic field fluctuations?The list is HUGE!
-
The list is HUGE!
Yes, it's quite a long list, all of which misses the point.
I don't think anyone had failed to understand that pure code will still use memory/cpu.
-
I don't think anyone had failed to understand that pure code will still use memory/cpu.
You must be new here.
-
all of which misses the point.
Depends on ones point [pun intended] of view...the statement "without side-effects" is typically phrased as an absolute, and so far I have never seen nor heard of a case where it was true (in the absolute sense).
Remember the "Death by Excel" fiasco on one brand of early tablets? There were enough calculations that the heat generated was more than the tablet to dissipate and the temp rise was fast enough that damage occurred before the protection mechanism's kicked in.... [IIRC it was a Toshiba, but it has been enough years that I am not sure]
-
Depends on ones point [pun intended] of view...the statement "without side-effects" is typically phrased as an absolute, and so far I have never seen nor heard of a case where it was true (in the absolute sense).
So I guess we interpret it from the point of view of the speaker, a functional programming evangelist, and so... yeah... that's not what they meant and you're still wrong.
-
You must be new here.
Every once in a while, I put some faith in humanity.
I always regret it.
What kind of being keeps making the same mistakes without learning better?!
-
What kind of being keeps making the same mistakes without learning better?!
Website designer:
-
What kind of being keeps making the same mistakes without learning better?!
From time to time we learn to make bigger and better mistakes…
-
without any side effects then nothing of interest actually ever happens; they're often the whole damn point.
Users are merely functions that accept time as an argument and produce events as output. I say we just memoize the whole lot of them.
-
Isn't that against the Geneva Convention?
-
I don't think so. Memoizing users is merely a way to implement Last Thursdayism.
-
Users are merely functions that accept time as an argument and produce events as output. I say we just memoize the whole lot of them.
If they'd just stop sending me memos, that'd be a good start…
