3 ms·
> This is a great article but I really wish that somewhere on the page it said what a Dark is and why I would want one. I feel exactly the same. It looks like
by UncleOxidant 6y ago
> This is a great article but I really wish that somewhere on the page it said what a Dark is and why I would want one.
I feel exactly the same. It looks like you have to watch some videos that explain what it is and what it's for and I don't have time. If they can't describe it in a concise paragraph then I'm not sure why I would care. Why is this ending up on the front page of HN 2 days in a row - apparently it's only because they're dropping OCaml. Ok, fine you're dropping OCaml and moving to F# for your... whatever it is.
- markburns 6y agoI’ve used it quite a bit and you make a valid point. The appeal it had to me was watching one of the videos in which he talks about inherent versus accidental complexity. I’d say eliminating all the extraneous accidental complexity you see in the entire process of building software is what it aims to do. That really resonated with me. Deployment, code versioning, IDEs, infrastructure. So many of these things can be replaced by a simpler holistic toolset. I’d say for simple use cases they’re well past the 80% mark. And it really is enjoyable building something in this paradigm. The challenges are obviously the next 20% which will be where all the really hard edge case parts come. I’m really looking forward to seeing it evolve. It’s worth watching the introductory talk, even if you never intend to build something with it. Accidental complexity is something I’m sure all engineers battle with. It’s nice seeing a genuine attempt to eliminate it. Even if it has ironically come along with some of its own accidental complexity. (E.g. not having enough libraries) I’m hopeful that they’ll continue to battle all the right parts of accidental complexity and stay aware (as they are) of where they’re introducing it