I second this. Wilma's eye passed over us, which was my first time ever experiencing the eye wall of a hurricane. I vividly remember watching our house's patio enclosure get destroyed from my parents' bedroom.
I wouldn't stick around for this one if I were still in Florida.
I haven't actually found LLRBs to be simpler to implement, and a couple other sources agree with me. They're pedagogically simpler than standard RB trees, but if your goal is to introduce students to a balanced binary tree, I'd argue that AVLs are easier to teach and implement than either RBs or LLRBs.
You know, I've had people assume I was an inferior software developer solely because I was in a social fraternity and therefore must not have spent any time studying for my exams or working on my problem sets. That's not really a nice prior to have about an individual, sort of how it would be considered quite offensive to assume that a woman were an inferior software developer due to her gender.
Additionally, I'm not going to pretend that Greek life is 100% free of douchebaggery. Some people in fraternities do bad things to other people, or harbor bigoted worldviews. I feel that you grossly overestimate the proportion of people who do. To address the racial and sexual homogeneity point, I'm fairly confident that every single fraternity at my alma mater had individuals of color and homosexual individuals. My own certainly did.
I'd also like to point out the obvious blanket statements you've made about the demographics and attitudes of fraternity members. However, I really don't think anyone or anything can budge your opinion.
Is this satire? If not, would you be amenable to posting a list of all the organizations you've been associated with in the past, so we can all make assumptions about your ethics, behavior, and attitudes towards race, religion, and sex - based on statistically significant percentages of those organizations, of course?
Not the original comment author, but I thoroughly enjoyed taking Penn's undergraduate compilers course, which used OCaml to compile a basic OO language with single inheritance and dynamic dispatch. http://www.seas.upenn.edu/~cis341
In my experience, #4 has held up extremely well over time and is the most compelling reason for choosing an ML over another language. Algebraic data types are an absolute joy to work with when dealing with abstract syntax trees. The other points are obviously great to have, but strong language support for ADTs is key, in my opinion.
I'm not certain I agree with #3. It seems to defeat the purpose of a strong type system. Either way, it can be very nice to express meta-level constructs in a matching object-level type. For example, if the language you are writing a compiler for has an int32 datatype, but you use an int64 in the language you're writing the compiler in, you'll need to simulate overflow. It would just be easier and safer to use an int32 in both places.
These days, I'd recommend Menhir over ocamlyacc unless you have a very specific use case that the former breaks on but the latter works on.
> In my experience, #4 has held up extremely well over time and is the most compelling reason for choosing an ML over another language.
I have a hard time choosing between ADTs and the module system, honestly. If I really had to chose, I'd probably pick ADTs, but it'd be very close. It's really disappointing every time a new language comes out and it has a weak module system. Especially F#, which was primarily influenced by OCaml.
A thousand times this; I've been working on compiler-y things in C++ for the past couple years, and I am firmly convinced that the visitor pattern is a truly inadequate way to attempt to compensate for the lack of a proper destructuring pattern-matching construct in a language.
They also raised $605.49 in 2014. Total funding to date is $1.8B over 17 rounds. At a $20B valuation this puts them at about 11:1 valuation over funding, which is informative about their investors guess into their growth prospects.
Does anyone else have the following issue with the footnote hotlinking on this blog post? When I click the "return" icon on a footnote to jump to the point in the text where the footnote is, I end up several lines below where I should. The sentence with the footnote is concealed by the black WaPo header bar.
I can replicate this behavior in Chrome on Ubuntu, Chrome on El Capitan, and Safari on El Capitan.
I recently graduated from the Wharton / SEAS undergraduate dual-degree program. I can't currently think of any PMs that didn't have a technical background. I completely agree that being able to grok technical concepts is necessary, and that being a good software developer isn't. However, it is pretty difficult for someone to grok technical concepts in a way that can add value to software engineers without some soft of software engineering or computer science background. I haven't been able to think of a better way to pick up the technical context than to actually program. The banking analogy is the stereotype of the "clueless" MBA associate who didn't put in the two years as an analyst, can't build models, and therefore doesn't add much value to his or her analysts.
In other words, I submit that it is significantly easier to fully understand the architecture, as sologoub is referring to, with a technical background.
It seems like your CS minor and Rails experience gave you the necessary background, which supplements the soft skills that PMs also need.
A lot of my friends and peers who were "interested in technology" but did not understand software engineering took jobs as PMMs, venture capital analysts, or investment banking analysts on a TMT desk. I think this makes sense; I can't see them being very good in a PM role.
It wouldn't surprise me if this were somewhat different for MBAs, though.
I wouldn't stick around for this one if I were still in Florida.