cemerick

25 ms·

211.
by cemerick 15y ago
That's great, exactly the sort of experience I was hoping to hear about! :-D I have a number of ideas about how to sanely scale things up to support arbitrary third-party libraries.
212.
by cemerick 15y ago
This (or some variation on the issue of the graph's motion / time-to-completion) is easily the #1 complaint right now. I have a variety of ideas for eliminating the problem(s).
213.
by cemerick 15y ago
Thanks. :-) I hope you find this helpful. I've gotten very little pushback on the pricing so far, much to my (pleasant) surprise. This was touched on the prior HN thread on the topic ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2463682 ).
214.
by cemerick 15y ago
FYI, my announcement post can be found @ http://cemerick.com/2011/05/03/clojure-atlas-now-available/ (previous discussion related to my "preview" of the concept a few weeks ago is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2463249 ) If yo
215.
Clojure Atlas, a visualization of the Clojure language & standard library(clojureatlas.com)
60 points by cemerick 15y ago|12 comments
216.
The German School of Lisp ("Fluchtpunkt Lisps")(blog.fogus.me)
106 points by cemerick 15y ago|32 comments
217.
RAID0 ephemeral storage on AWS EC2(gabrielweinberg.com)
51 points by cemerick 15y ago|13 comments
218.
by cemerick 15y ago
I agree; throughout the development of Clojure Atlas (which uses Raphael and arborjs heavily), I've observed this rough ranking: Chrome > IE >= Safari > Firefox
219.
by cemerick 15y ago
It's not a matter of it not being comprehensible once you know what's going on; it's a matter of consistency with the rest of the language. Everywhere else, each symbol refers to one and only one value within a given lexical context. Brea
220.
by cemerick 15y ago
There is a spike of scheme-esque macros for Clojure here: https://github.com/qbg/syntax-rules Not sure of the status/quality of that impl, but there you go.
221.
by cemerick 15y ago
Because _ and _ refer to two different values using the same name. Adding a third _ would refer to yet another value, etc.
222.
by cemerick 15y ago
I don't see any resistance to change; it's more like Clojure folks are generally going to demand that changes be unequivocally positive. I remember the fixed-position args in Scala function literals being particularly irritating in certain
223.
by cemerick 15y ago
> Steve's point about Clojure having a limited time to gain acceptance before it's considered "over" is valid Is there an hourglass somewhere? In any case, nothing's even close to "over" or "dead at the starting gate". If that were the
224.
by cemerick 15y ago
I actually thought it was as fair and representative a quote as I could pull from the discussion; my apologies to Mr. Yegge if it's uncharitable from his perspective.
225.
by cemerick 15y ago
We just got done hearing about how PHP's early years included "official" abstention from frameworky things ( http://codefury.net/2011/04/why-php-was-a-ghetto/ ). PHP "won" because of distribution, just like Javascript is "winning" now.
226.
Steve Yegge v. Rich Hickey re: "Clojure just needs to start saying Yes"(groups.google.com)
218 points by cemerick 15y ago|154 comments
227.
by cemerick 15y ago
The jury is still out, but the initial response has been pretty positive. To be clear, I'm certainly not working towards world domination on this one – really just scratching an itch, and maybe getting a(nother) fun side business in the pr
228.
by cemerick 15y ago
Forwarded to my wife, who gets far too many headaches. Interesting concept, good luck.
229.
by cemerick 16y ago
True enough. I've needed some bits of docbook that don't have a direct asciidoc corollary twice, and just used asciidoc passthrough blocks to use them. It's a very practical solution to a leaky abstraction, while allowing me to stay in as
230.
by cemerick 16y ago
Not that I can post publicly. It should be available as an O'Reilly Rough Cut soon; if you snag it (or any PDF ebook version of it), you're looking at an asciidoc-sourced PDF. AFAIK, the vast majority of O'Reilly books pass through docbook
231.
by cemerick 16y ago
FYI, asciidoc is great, provides a pipeline to docbook (and thence on to PDF), and is a joy to edit (not quite as concise as, say, markdown, but not ambiguously-defined, either). See my other comment on this thread about it.
232.
by cemerick 16y ago
FWIW, I and my coauthors are writing "Clojure Programming" for O'Reilly using asciidoc[1]. Our source ends up being converted to a beautiful PDF using a post-commit hook that performs a translation from asciidoc -> docbook -> PDF
233.
by cemerick 16y ago
It sounds like we're down to services and live performances. I think you just eliminated most of the classes of content that you likely consume in a recorded form. And in the software world, some would say hosted services should be freely
234.
by cemerick 16y ago
We're largely in agreement, then. Repercussions should vary with the magnitude of the infringement. Various industry groups managing to get individuals fined for out-sized sums, jail time for parents of downloaders, etc., are out of bound
235.
by cemerick 16y ago
> something which people voluntarily pay for When was the last time you were forced to pay for something you didn't want? I know that isn't what you meant, but if the producer of a good is not capable of determining the terms under whic
236.
by cemerick 16y ago
Yes, piracy will always exist, and there are lots of things that can be done to de-incentivize it. I do what I can. That's aside from the question of whether it should be considered normative, legal behaviour.
237.
by cemerick 16y ago
That's absurd. The law is the law, and people that produce content, software, whatever for non-commercial/personal/consumer consumption have the same standing as I do as a commercial vendor, and should have the same standing. Infringemen
238.
by cemerick 16y ago
That view would seem to have some pretty far-reaching consequences, insofar as many of us produce information of one sort or another and nothing else. Sounds like the only way we should expect to get paid is through generous benefactors an
239.
by cemerick 16y ago
No, I said people here "appear to be laissez-faire on this issue". I'd say that's accurate, given that the primary interest appears to be the semantics of "theft" vs. "copyright infringement" while the practical effect in many cases is the
240.
by cemerick 16y ago
Just about the only lick of sense in this discussion. I'm surprised that so many here, a community where lots of people are engaged in entrepreneurial ventures and where many donate to the unpaid author of widely-pirated shareware [1], wo

More ›