5 ms·
This kinda looks like a linkjacked version of that: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=777666 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=777666
by apotheon 17y ago
This kinda looks like a linkjacked version of that:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=777666 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=777666
- silentbicycle 17y agoIt's on Lambda the Ultimate, which is a well-known programming language theory discussion site. While the link could have been to the steering committee statement, the signal-to-noise ratio for LtU's discussion will probably be on par with HN's. It's worth browsing their archives (http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/lambda-archive1.html http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/classic/lambda-archive1.html) sometime, when you have a couple hours. Great stuff. (I'm only posting the link because it's a Friday afternoon. ;) )
- apotheon 17y agoOh, I read stuff there from time to time, and it's often interesting. I just didn't see anything in the original posting at LtU that made me think "Yes, it was definitely important to submit this instead of the actual meat of the matter."
- apgwoz 17y agoI linked to it specifically for the discussion that LtU has on the matter.
- apotheon 17y agoFair 'nuff. Upvoted. I just don't usually like to read discussion in two separate places of the same topic. It gets tedious. I guess it's a matter of personal taste.
- apgwoz 17y agoOrdinarily I'd agree with you. However, this is a case where the insights of a more specialized community on programming languages makes sense.
- apotheon 17y agoYou're probably right. I'm still feeling too lazy to sift through it, though. I'd rather just deal with one discussion context, and spend the free time I would have spent on the other discussion context reading SICP instead. edit: Part of the problem is that I don't like the LtU discussion presentation as much as HN's, I'm sure.