Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Not OCaml, Haskell or SML at most. (Score 1) 100

by PylonHead (#46709109) Attached to: Microsoft To Allow Code Contributions To F#

Your comment is so bizarre that I almost think you must have attached it to the wrong post.

I programmed in OCaml for many years.

Yes, there is no automatic type conversion in OCaml. I certainly never said there was. Some people see this as a feature (you know exactly what you're dealing with at all times), some as an issue (you have to write tedious conversions that some languages handle for you).

Yes, there are different arithmetic operators for different numeric types. It's a little bizarre when you're used to other languages, but once you get used to it it's not an issue.

Most of my code was compiled so I didn't experience issues with compiled vs interpreted.

It certainly had a few rough edges here and there, perhaps because the community was not as large as more mainstream languages. They probably would have been ironed out if the language had really taken off.

Comment: Re:Wow ... just why? (Score 4, Informative) 100

by PylonHead (#46662735) Attached to: Microsoft To Allow Code Contributions To F#

I haven't looked at it for a while, but it's basically Microsoft's version of OCaml which is an objected oriented ML variant, (and a very slick language with a long development history).

I'm not really seeing it catch on either, but OCaml's sweet spot was writing fast code that dealt with very complex data structures. It enforced static typing, but used type inference to figure out what the types of variables were. It has powerful operators for assembling and splitting up data structures that let you write very concise code that was checked at compile time for correctness.

It is somewhat similar in flavor to Haskell (although it's probably wrong to say they're going in Haskells direction.. more that they have common ancestors).

+ - Graphene is back. Is the Space Elevator back as well?->

Submitted by PanHandleDan
PanHandleDan (605249) writes "Graphene is a one-atom-thick sheet of carbon — basically a carbon nanotube in sheet form. In addition to having extraordinary conducting properties, it has a tensile strength of 130GPa, or 200 times that of steel. Until recently, attempts to create graphene in any appreciable size resulted in much weaker material. However, engineers at Columbia University seemed to have made a research breakthrough:

"The Columbia Engineering team wanted to discover what was making CVD [chemical vapor deposition] graphene so weak. In studying the processing techniques used to create their samples for testing, they found that the chemical most commonly used to remove the copper substrate also causes damage to the graphene, severely degrading its strength. Their experiments demonstrated that CVD graphene with large grains is exactly as strong as exfoliated graphene, showing that its crystal lattice is just as perfect. And, more surprisingly, their experiments also showed that CVD graphene with small grains, even when tested right at a grain boundary, is about 90% as strong as the ideal crystal."

What does this mean for the future of not just foldable displays and super long bridges, but of space tourism?"

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Hadoop is much better and stable (Score 3, Insightful) 37

by PylonHead (#43456405) Attached to: Google's BigQuery Vs. Hadoop: a Matchup

You understand that that number is flawed, right? He only figures in the average lives of products that Google has killed. It's kind of like looking at all the people who died of heart attacks, finding out they lived to an average of 48 years old, and then telling the general population that, on average, they're going to die of a heart attack when they're 48 years old.

But please, jump on the anti-google circle jerk. It seems to be the thing to do at the moment.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...