-
-
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik haha! Some people would argue the opposite! http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peregrine
@peregrine I think Rich is a smart dude, and I think Clojure and Datomic are neat, but I fundamentally disagree1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik Whats the argument for using a struct over a hash? Just because of the name?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peregrine
@peregrine but for me, “I can start with the trivial class and grow it naturally.”2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik thats funny, my argument for using hashes is, "I can start with a simple hash and grow the functions used on it naturally"1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peregrine
@peregrine in Ruby, making something that inherits from a hash is a Bad Idea1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik I think the point we are arguing is FP vs OOP. Its nice that ruby allows us to program so differently :)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @peregrine
@peregrine ehh, even in Haskell, you reify concrete types. It’s not as simple as FP vs OOP1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik
@steveklabnik this is not a good medium for this kind of discussion I think. I'm much more inlined with Hickey on this particular issue.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.