It’s very frustrating to be in a situation where you know how to do something one way, but you can’t do it like that and you have to learn a completely different way to do it. Feeling like a beginner again makes people feel stupid, and most people don’t like that. But it really just means you’re learning a new way to approach problems.
While they’re far from mainstream, they’re definitely languages worth learning. And I’d argue that learning functional style first gives you a much better intuition regarding state management which makes you a better imperative programmer as a result. It’s much easier to go from functional to imperative than the other way around.
I mostly work with Clojure myself, and it’s pretty easy to set up with VSCode and Calva plugin. There’s also a lightweight runtime for it that doesn’t require the JVM which is great for a learning set up. You just run bb --nrepl-server and then connect the editor to it as shown here. From there on you can run code and see results right in the editor. This is a good overview of what the workflow looks like in practice.
Also have some beginner resources I’ve used to train new hires on Clojure.
I would suggest taking a look at Scheme or Clojure for somebody who has no development experience. The big reasons being that these are high level languages so you can focus on learning the actual concepts without all the incidental complexity of imperative languages. Scheme in particular was designed as a teaching language. The other aspect is interactivity, Lisps have a tight integration between the editor and the REPL and you can evaluate functions as you write them. This is incredibly helpful for learning as you can write a function, send it for evaluation, and see the result immediately. So you can play with code and get an intuition for how things work.
oh look another opinion over from lobotomy.world
the essence of the American political system
you mean the Gestapo since GDR was integrated into the west German model
fedposting from feddit.org, checks out
^ when you definitely understand what memes are
My favorite part is how dems judiciously avoid discussing the elephant in the room which is that it is their own policies that disenfranchise the public.
That’s my view as well. There ultimately needs to be a human decision maker in the loop for any meaningful work to happen.
that’s the joke :)
Yeah, you kind of have to play it by ear. I find a big red flag is when somebody just starts regurgitating well known tropes that have been discussed to death. That’s usually a clear sign they’re just here to stir shit up.
You’re right that mockery is a terrible way to convert anyone. I think the real issue is that you’re not going to reach everyone, and that means we have to be strategic about where we put our energy. When someone is genuinely asking questions or wrestling with ideas in good faith, that’s where patient, respectful dialogue is essential.
But a huge amount of online discourse isn’t that. It’s just bad faith concern trolling, sealioning, or just repeating liberal pieties. Engaging with that on its own terms is a trap because it wastes time and gives legitimacy to arguments designed to waste our time.
A sharp dismissal or ridicule draws a clear line, shows others they don’t have to entertain every bad argument, and prevents the conversation from being derailed. The target is the audience, not the provocateur. So while it’s useless for persuasion, I’d argue that it has a role in defining the boundaries of the discussion.
what level of brain rot is this, oh wait lemmy.world, that explains things
And then they’d need to be able to verify that the code actually meets these requirements. That might even necessitate specifying these requirements in some sort of a formal language…
We cannot understand class behavior by examining individual morality. Viewing the capital owning class as a collection of mustache twirling villains is not a useful framing. Rather, we should look at them as the human personification of capital itself. Their social being, their entire material condition, is defined by the accumulation of private profit and the protection of property relations that enforce their dominance.
Their inability to relate is not a personal failing but a direct result of their objective position in the capitalist mode of production. They live in a world insulated from the precarity of rent, medical debt, and wage slavery that defines life for the working majority. Their consciousness is shaped by them being insulated from the problems regular people experience. Therefore, critique of their lack of empathy is a liberal dead end because it mistakes a systemic outcome for a personal choice.
The focus must be the capitalist system itself, which necessarily produces the inequality and the divide between the capitalists and the workers. The fundamental contradiction between the socialized nature of production and the private appropriation of wealth is the core issue. The solution is to dismantle the economic base that creates them as a class and move towards a system where the means of production are socially owned, abolishing the very material conditions that breed alienation and disparity.
exactly, a great tv series on the subject incidentally https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078588/
Seconded, I should’ve just said Racket really.