ToE is generally taken to mean a theory that accounts for all four fundamental forces in physics, 1) strong nuclear force, 2) electromagnetism, 3) weak nuclear force (unified in some way with electromagnetism now), 4) gravity. The “standard model” only handles the first three, with gravity being separate and very mysterious. I’m skeptical of this new paper on various grounds but who knows.
Java isn’t exactly hard, and it’s not particularly fundamental. It’s just bureaucratic, and Python will be both more enjoyable and more useful. Java was trendy in the 1990s and lingers on because so much Java code is still around. If your goal is to use a serious type system (Lisp and Python don’t have that), Haskell will be far more enlightening than Java. If you want to use the JVM for some reason, Clojure (a Lisp dialect that run in it) might interest you.
For low level fundamentals, you want assembly language! That gives you almost no assistance and you have to do EVERYTHING yourself, organizing the program in your own head. For old fashioned imperative programming with lots of organizational assistance, try Ada.
You will probably have to learn C at some point, but save it for later when it will be easier for you to spot the weaknesses.
I don’t remember being that impressed with HTDP but it’s been a while and I didn’t look much. I’d say read SICP first in either case.
The Java thing sounds totally uninteresting and if your next language after Lisp isn’t a a mainstream one, I’d say try Haskell.
Regarding math: it can help but it’s not that important for pure programming. If you’re good at languages and writing, that’s helpful in the same way. If you’re good at music, that is at least a helpful mindset.
What? Problems like this usually come down to some missing indexes. Can you view the query plan for your slow queries? See how long they are taking? IDK about SQL Server but usually there is a command called something like ANALYZE, that breaks down a query into the different parts of its execution plan, executes it, and measures how long each part takes. If you see something like “FULL TABLE SCAN” taking a long time, that can usually be fixed with an index.
If this doesn’t make any sense to you, ask if there are any database gurus at your company, or book a few hours with a consultant. If you go the paid consultant route, say you want someone good at SQL Server query optimization.
By the way I think some people in this thread are overestimating the complexity of this type of problem or are maybe unintentionally spreading FUD. I’m not a DB guru but I would say that by now I’m somewhat clueful, and I got that way mostly by reading the SQLlite docs including the implementation manuals over a few evenings. That’s probably a few hundred pages but not 2000 or anything like that.
First question: how many separate tables does your DB have? If less than say 20, you are probably in simple territory.
Also, look at your slowest queries. They likely say SELECT something FROM this JOIN that JOIN otherthing bla bla bla. How many different JOINs are in that query? If just one, you probably need an index; if two or three, it might take a bit of head scratching; and if 4 or more, something is possibly wrong with your schema or how the queries are written and you have to straighten that out.
Basically from having seen this type of thing many times before, there is about a 50% chance that it can be solved with very little effort, by adding indexes based on studying the slow query executions.
Wow, so maybe the universe really is centered around me after all. Take that, 1st grade teacher! j/k.
There’s no need to make more classes. You can move some of the code so it’s not in any class.
It’s mostly ok, my immediate reaction is that it’s unnecessary to put the whole program into a class. Python isn’t Java. It’s fine to write procedures at the top level.
Also as someone said, consider using enums, and also the new case statement as of Python 3.10. Type annotations also can make things clearer. I’ve been using mypy to check mine but there are some alternatives now that might be better.
There is not much error checking but that can be ok if you are the only user.
If the config file might be crafted maliciously, it can use escape codes for a terminal playback attack: https://www.cyberark.com/resources/threat-research-blog/dont-trust-this-title-abusing-terminal-emulators-with-ansi-escape-characters
Be careful of that.
Oh I see. The Linux kernel has been doing fine with mailing lists (LKML) for decades, if that helps.
What does that even mean? If it’s a service, it’s a program running on some computer somewhere. Is that not hosting?
You can self host it.
Isn’t the main issue with it that you’re not forced to be functional? It’s supposed to be pretty good at it with the correct libraries.
I’d say CL’s main issue is that it’s anachronistic by now, and when used idiomatically it’s an imperative language (think of LOOP). You can use some functional idioms in it, but it gets painful to do so.
Look at the article “Why Functional Programming Matters” and imagine rewriting the code examples in Scheme (confusing but straightforward) and then in CL (ouch).
Haskell doesn’t have impure functions. What you’re calling impure functions (functions that produce values in the notorious I/O monad) are actually pure functions, that produce what you could think of as programs that run in an impure interpreter that’s outside of Haskell itself. Don’t worry about understanding that in detail until you’re deeper into learning Haskell, but at that point it will help demystify what the I/O monad (a traditional stumbling block) actually is.
The first few pages of learnyouahaskell.com will give you some sample code to show how clean the language can be.
Gerrit still exists for that. Whether it’s currently best, idk.
Your crossposted question was a choice between Clojure and Common Lisp. Between the two I would say Clojure is more functional, but it comes with the baggage of the JVM. Common Lisp on the other hand is more of a 1980s language where you can use a functional style some of the time, and with some pain.
If you want a Lisp-like language, the usual starting point is Scheme, and if you want something with more creature comforts, try Racket. Either way, you’d start by reading SICP (fulltext here). But I think that whole approach misses out on an important aspect of FP, which is how type systems classify values.
So I’d say go with a typed functional language. OCaml is something like what you are used to, while Haskell is more “drinking from the fire hose” (steeper learning curve, but I think you will get more from it).
For Haskell, learnyouahaskell.com is a good place to start. I don’t know if there is something similar for OCaml. Haskell can be seen as a gateway drug to even more pointy headed languages like Idris.
Yet another thing to look at as a possible migration point from Ruby is Elixir. It’s not really so FP, but it’s very practical if you’re mostly interested in web development rather than programming languages per se. It’s dynamically typed like Ruby and uses Ruby-like syntax, so you should be able to switch to it fairly easily.
Um what? Any links?
Looks kind of interesting if anyone around here actually uses Windows. Better to switch though, if you haven’t yet.
Structure and interpretation of computer programs (SICP) is a classic. It’s readable online or you can get a printed copy.
I reported that post as drivel but the “AI” part didn’t occur to me either. Anyway though. c/science isn’t an “open platform” in the sense of being a garbage dump where anyone can post random crap. It’s moderated and has standards that the post didn’t meet. The author might instead want to start a blog to post their rants.
You really have to see what the db is doing to understand where the bottlenecks are, i.e. find the query plans. It’s ok if it’s just single selects. Look for stuff like table scans that shouldn’t happen. How many queries per second are there? Remember that SSD’s have been a common thing for maybe 10 years. Before that it was HDD’s everywhere, and people still ran systems with very high throughput. They had much less ram then than now too.