Pipoca

I agree with you that if you use functions it's functional.

But many people don't really realize how that contrasts with procedures and procedural code.

and probably using the sweetest varieties they can find.

It's probably a mix of using sweet varieties, picking at peak ripeness and quickly juicing them without much transportation.

Think of the difference in if you made tomato juice with a standard supermarket tomato vs a local in-season farmstand tomato.

Either way, we should all be watering it down.

Honestly, juice just isn't anywhere near as healthy as whole fruit.

You can water it down if you want, but either way it should be a fairly rare treat.

Some of the best drinks I've ever had are pure fresh-squeezed juice.

For example: pomegranate juice pressed by a street vendor? Amazing. Apples from the tree in my mom's yard? Incredible when juiced. Freshly squeezed orange juice? Sign me up.

Relatively few fruits make a juice that's not good straight. Cranberry comes to mind as being too bitter. Lemon is a bit too acidic for most.

Wyman's 100% blueberry juice is 20g sugar per 250ml. Mott's apple juice is 28g for 8 oz/240ml. So blueberry juice is about 2/3 the sugar of apple juice. It's still plenty sweet.

You don't water blueberry juice down because it's not sweet enough. You water it down because 8oz of Mott's apple juice is $1.30 at Walmart, and 8oz of wymans' blueberry juice is $7.30. Blends use apple juice because it's cheap and mild, so you can layer other flavors on top.

Juice isn't bad for you because of the extra apple sugar. It's bad because you removed all the fiber. Fiber promotes sateity.

Functions, here, being the key word.

Functions are pure mappings from input to output.

C is many things, but elegant really isn't one of them.

C has always been part of the "worse is better"/New Jersey school of thinking. The ultimate goal is simplicity. Particularly simplicity of language implementation, even if that makes programs written in that language more complex or error prone. It's historically been a very successful approach.

Rust, on the other hand, is part of "The Right Thing"/MIT approach. Simplicity is good, but it's more important to be correct and complete even if it complicates things a bit.

I don't really think of void* and ubiquitous nulls, for example, as the hallmark of elegance, but as pretty simple, kludgey solutions.

Rust, on the other hand, brings a lot of really elegant solutions from ML- family languages to a systems language. So you get algebraic data types, pattern matching, non-nullable references by default, closures, typeclasses, expression-oriented syntax, etc.

Just like walking doesn't really compete, like at all, with flying in an aircraft, Functional and Object Oriented Programming are at their best when you use whichever approach makes sense for a given situation and in any reasonably complex software that means your code should be full of both.

I'm not really sure sure that's true.

In FP languages like Haskell, you get tools like algebraic data types, typeclasses, and pattern matching.

FP is really opposed to imperative programming, while objects are opposed to algebraic data types.

You can write OO code that's 100% fully functional, and you can write code in Haskell or rust where you barely notice you never once used an object.

Yeah, OO and FP aren't really opposed. FP is opposed to imperative programming.

That said, most FP languages give you a slightly different set of tools to use. Algebraic data types and typeclasses are really, really nice.

Honestly, working in Haskell or rust, you don't really miss the fact that you have to jump through hoops to get traditional OO objects. There's just not really many cases where you need them.

You see, government death panels are terrible.

Corporate death panels to boost profitability, though, are freedom, baseball, and apple pie.

I've mentioned zinfandel to people before and had them say "I don't really like white wine".

Seriously. Say you know nothing about wine without saying you know nothing about wine.

For people who don't get it, Zin is a red grape and "white zinfandel" is actually a rosé. You basically never see Zin made into an actual white wine.

The lubbavitcher rebbe said a couple years before he died that he wanted his synagogue expanded.

There's been a bit of a power vacuum since he died, and expanding the building hasn't been possible due to court cases over the building's ownership.

A bunch of the students think that the rebbe is coming back as the messiah, were bored and decided that they could start the expansion by tunneling into the basement from a couple buildings over.

The main problem is just that getting a product from a one-off in a lab to a cost-competitive mass-market product is hard and can take a lot of time, to say the least.

For example, Don Sadoway initially published about a molten metal battery in 2009. He gave a Ted talk in 2012. They've run into assorted setbacks along the way and are apparently just starting to deploy the first commercial test systems this year.

It's less that these breakthroughs are bullshit, and more that commercializing these things is hard. The articles about the breakthroughs are often bullshit, though, or at least way too rosy.

DS9 ran till '99, though.

The first seasons were 30 years ago, but the ending is only about 25 years ago.

BSG, though, finished in 1979. If someone says "thirty years ago" and your first thought is the 70s, you might be old. BSG ended 45 years ago. It's 20 years older than the finale of DS9.

Edit: if someone asks you "who was president 30 years ago", do you instantly think of Jimmy Carter? Because BSG came out basically in the middle of his presidency. If your first thought was Bush or Reagan, you associate the Sci Fi of 30 years ago with reruns of BSG.