3 ms·

Ok, I was not able to share what I believed to be seen as a joke. Sorry :( Maybe you would prefer this more serious introduction : http://epsilonwiki.free.fr/l

Ok, I was not able to share what I believed to be seen as a joke. Sorry :( Maybe you would prefer this more serious introduction : http://epsilonwiki.free.fr/lambdaway/?view=calc2talk http://epsilonwiki.free.fr/lambdaway/?view=calc2talk

danso 10y ago
Was it meant to be a joke? My problem is that it's just plain misleading. This is the first line after the boilerplate introduction: > It begins with simple things, for instance you could simply write {ava} > and get a picture of the gorgious Ava Gardner It made me think that this was some kind of framework with a feature akin to invoking `/giphy [some word]` in Slack. Only after scrolling all the way down do we find that it's just basically a variable that holds the same amount of code it would take to show that image through HTML and CSS, without any information on why it would be beneficial to follow a practice of writing inline styles (as opposed to the standard practice of using CSS selectors and external sheets).
- martyalain 10y ago
  « a practice of writing inline styles (as opposed to the standard practice of using CSS selectors and external sheets) » The constant "ava" can be stored in another page of the wiki, a library which can be called via a {require mylibrary}. Please be nice enough to believe that I'm aware of the standard practice... This "quick" introduction can't explain everything. Neither CSS standard practices, nor first class functions, currying, tail-recursion, macros, and so on. Please take time to go further in this work before saying « it's just plain misleading ». Thank you.
  - danso 10y ago
    Sorry, I didn't mean to attack your intelligence or technical competency. Anyone who proposes a new open-source web language/framework has an exceeding amount in both, in my opinion. My complaint is that the gratuitous (and large, when I'm viewing the page on mobile) visuals obfuscate the details. The premise of the intro is that it is just "simple things" (and the conclusion, "Keep it Small and Simple"). "Simple", to me, would be how invoking "ava" embeds an image of an Ava into the page, a priori. But that is not at all the case and I have to scroll past 3 large headshots of actresses to get to the point. And even then, the utility is unclear. I don't expect a "quick" introduction to explain everything. But if the article has the time to throw in random photos to gaze upon, then I'm going to be disappointed when I get to the end to see few details explained.

danso 10y ago

Was it meant to be a joke? My problem is that it's just plain misleading. This is the first line after the boilerplate introduction: > It begins with simple things, for instance you could simply write {ava} > and get a picture of the gorgious Ava Gardner It made me think that this was some kind of framework with a feature akin to invoking `/giphy [some word]` in Slack. Only after scrolling all the way down do we find that it's just basically a variable that holds the same amount of code it would take to show that image through HTML and CSS, without any information on why it would be beneficial to follow a practice of writing inline styles (as opposed to the standard practice of using CSS selectors and external sheets).

martyalain 10y ago
« a practice of writing inline styles (as opposed to the standard practice of using CSS selectors and external sheets) » The constant "ava" can be stored in another page of the wiki, a library which can be called via a {require mylibrary}. Please be nice enough to believe that I'm aware of the standard practice... This "quick" introduction can't explain everything. Neither CSS standard practices, nor first class functions, currying, tail-recursion, macros, and so on. Please take time to go further in this work before saying « it's just plain misleading ». Thank you.
- danso 10y ago
  Sorry, I didn't mean to attack your intelligence or technical competency. Anyone who proposes a new open-source web language/framework has an exceeding amount in both, in my opinion. My complaint is that the gratuitous (and large, when I'm viewing the page on mobile) visuals obfuscate the details. The premise of the intro is that it is just "simple things" (and the conclusion, "Keep it Small and Simple"). "Simple", to me, would be how invoking "ava" embeds an image of an Ava into the page, a priori. But that is not at all the case and I have to scroll past 3 large headshots of actresses to get to the point. And even then, the utility is unclear. I don't expect a "quick" introduction to explain everything. But if the article has the time to throw in random photos to gaze upon, then I'm going to be disappointed when I get to the end to see few details explained.