| ▲ | userbinator 5 hours ago |
| For those who actually want to learn languages which are "fundamentally changing how you think about software", I'd recommend the Lisp family and APL family. |
|
| ▲ | fuzztester a minute ago | parent | next [-] |
| And Forth. And 6502 assembly. ;) And SNOBOL. And Icon. And ... |
|
| ▲ | pjmlp 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And Prolog as well. |
|
| ▲ | zwnow 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'd also throw Erlang/Elixir out there. And I really wished Elm wasn't such a trainwreck of a project... |
| |
| ▲ | 59nadir 9 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | No need to include Elixir here; none of the important bits that will change how you view software come from Elixir, it's just a skin on top of Erlang and that's it. | | |
| ▲ | zwnow 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'd argue more people use Elixir over Erlang at this point. Sure its just an abstraction on top of Erlang, but people learn through Elixir nowadays, not through Erlang. |
| |
| ▲ | matu3ba 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What is the most optimal Erlang/Elixir you can think of regarding standardized effect systems for recording non-determinism, replaying and reversible computing? How comparable are performance numbers of Erlang/Elixir with Java and wasm? | | |
| ▲ | zwnow 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'd recommend asking the Elixir community about this as I didn't even understand your question.
I am by no means a professional with Erlang/Elixir. I threw it out there because these language force you to think differently compared to common OOP languages. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | miki123211 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Am I correct that you can essentially "learn APL without learning APL" by just learning Numpy / Pytorch? I looked at array languages briefly, and my impression was that"ooh this is just Numpy but weirder." |
| |
