Echo JS 0.11.0


spalger comments

spalger 464 days ago. link 2 points
> I'm not going to argue that this is silly or wrong, because we all know the British have had clocks for longer than javascript has, so there is nothing to prove

spalger 559 days ago. link 2 points
How does:

  I’m not aware of any empirical evidence that static types have a strong impact on bug density.

lead you to make the assertion:

  So in spite of the cool developer tooling they enable, **static types don’t actually help reduce over-all bug density by very much.** [emphasis in the original]

especially when the only real study you quote ends with "we are unable to quantify the specific effects of language type on usage"
spalger 560 days ago. link 2 points
Also, I feel ashamed for falling for that click-bait title.
spalger 560 days ago. link 0 point
This argument doesn't seem to make any sense....
spalger 678 days ago. link 4 points
Does anyone else feel like a solution to this problem that doesn't either 1) call itself "shallow", or 2) recurse infinitely, is wrong?

It feels like any time I pass an array to a function called `flatten()` I better not get back an array with more arrays inside...