The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
It's a procedure-oriented language with object-oriented retrofits,
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
No it isn't. It's a procedure-oriented language with object-oriented retrofits
Monica Shiralkar wrote:What they write is that it is an object-oriented language and that it is quick to start with
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:Scripted languages like JavaScript and Python let you see results almost immediately at the expense of a longer debugging cycle.
I re- wrote:
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote:Java and other strongly-typed languages...
...Scripted languages like JavaScript and Python
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Strongly typed languages doesn't let you concatenate integer with an array
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Junilu Lacar wrote:This is not entirely true. It depends on what language you're talking about. There are languages, like Kotlin, where the "+" operator can be judiciously overloaded so you have List + Int semantics that are perfectly legal and sensible, like this
Liutauras Vilda wrote:Not sure I'm still clear. But thanks for clarifying this further - lots of literature using static/dynamic; strongly/weakly interchangeably, which really are different things.
Tim Holloway wrote:
I like Java, because I'd rather embarass myself privately (during the design phase) than publicly (when it's in world-wide production), but not everyone thinks like that.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote: with a language like Java, I can do stupid things and only myself and the compiler will know, With a language like Python, I could, as I've said, literally sneeze in the middle of saving a program module, hitting the keyboard and injecting random characters, and if it's not caught by upstream testing or review,
Monica Shiralkar wrote:But wouldn't even in case of Python,for those characters the IDE will show it as "Unresolved reference" and thus prevent us from proceeding?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
RTFJD (the JavaDocs are your friends!) If you haven't read them in a long time, then RRTFJD (they might have changed!)