They don't really let you do anything you couldn't do in Python, they just let you write more elegant code.
Personally I find ML-style languages to be difficult to read. They deliberately leave out a lot of the punctuation that makes code readable leading to code that just looks like a stream of words.
Rust is I think the best option here - it steals most of the good ideas from functional programming but has saner syntax.
Also you seem to be conflating pure languages with functional languages. I also made this mistake because Haskell is probably the best known functional language and it's also pure... But they're different things. OCaml is functional and not pure. You can use mutable variables to your heart's content.
Pretty huge. Going to have to give this another try. I wonder if this will become as successful as Blender.
Also they need to cut the Apple-style quips for every item ("It's written in bold", "Dock your heart out" etc.). It even says "teamwork makes the dream work" at the end. 100% cringe.
Honestly this looks like it sits in the useless middle ground between "proper CI that has all the features you expect" and "just write a Python/Deno script or whatever". I can't see what you gain.
Also you say "no painful YAML pipelines" but it uses YAML??
TCL & CMake are fully stringly typed. Both pretty terrible languages (though TCL can at least claim to be a clever hack that was taken far too seriously).
Try interacting with anything that uses u64 and you'll be a lot less happy!
Anyway JavaScript does have BigInt so technically you are choosing.
that insanity is how C and Intel handle NaN conversions.
It's not actually quite as bad as the article says. While it's UB for C, and it can return garbage. The actual x86 conversion instruction will never return garbage. Unfortunately the value it returns is 0x8000... whereas JS apparently wants 0. And it sets a floating point exception flag, so you still need extra instructions to handle it. Probably not many though.
Also in practice on a modern JS engine it won't actually need to do this operation very often anyway.
Yeah. I think the smallest number of number types you can reasonably have is two - f64 and arbitrary precision integers types. One of the few good decisions Python made.
Terrible title. The article is about the risks of everyone using GitHub. That doesn't mean GitHub is destroying the open source ecosystem. In fact it's the complete opposite - GitHub massively helps the open source ecosystem. That's why everyone uses it in the first place!
They don't really let you do anything you couldn't do in Python, they just let you write more elegant code.
Personally I find ML-style languages to be difficult to read. They deliberately leave out a lot of the punctuation that makes code readable leading to code that just looks like a stream of words.
Rust is I think the best option here - it steals most of the good ideas from functional programming but has saner syntax.
Also you seem to be conflating pure languages with functional languages. I also made this mistake because Haskell is probably the best known functional language and it's also pure... But they're different things. OCaml is functional and not pure. You can use mutable variables to your heart's content.
TL:DR learn Rust not Haskell or OCaml.