Elixir
Oooh, so put_in, get_in and update_in are basically lenses. That's pretty cool
I don't like to rely on macros but it certainly is convenient
re: Elixir
@socks out of curiosity, what do you not like about macros?
-F
Serious reply, re: Elixir
@Felthry They make it very difficult to debug when something is wrong. It's not a problem at all when it's something built into the language's standard library and thoroughly well-tested but as soon as you step out of that, you're walking on thin ice
re: Serious reply, re: Elixir
@socks I'm guessing in this context it means something more complicated than how people typically use C preprocessor macros, then?
oh and assembler macros are hard to program without, i don't want to have to remember which memory location we stored this variable in and every location we referenced it in case we have to change it
-F
re: Serious reply, re: Elixir
@socks @noiob if you say `int x = 3`, that's (bar any compiler optimizations) reserving some amount of memory (4 bytes on modern computers) for x to occupy, until it's done being x and can be used for something else (figuring out when it's done being x can be a hard problem if you don't explicitly say it's done being x, this is the cause of many memory leaks). If x is never anything other than 3, it would be more efficient to just use immediate opcodes instead of 1) taking up some memory and 2) requiring additional memory fetches (which are way slower than processor cycles)
-F
re: Serious reply, re: Elixir
@noiob @socks we taught ourselves how to program on a TI-84 and now primarily write code for tiny microcontrollers that cost $4, so entirely different worlds here
-F