ihodes

37 ms·

361.
by ihodes 16y ago
My motivation for posting this was to share a neat idea for a product. If someone could get into this market, and fast, I'd bet they'd have a solid business. Let me know when you launch—I'll be your first customer!
362.
by ihodes 16y ago
I'd be curious to hear what you found incompatible in the two's work. Certainly not all of it matches up nicely, but a lot of it, strangely, did—or so it seemed to me!
363.
by ihodes 16y ago
I guess if I'd written this for Hacker News, I'd have included the phrase "hackers aren't wedding planners" somewhere. We don't just program, we think and sweat and worry and ultimately, hopefully, create something inherently beautiful an
364.
Quality & Gumption (Hacking vs. Programming)(copperthoughts.com)
9 points by ihodes 16y ago|4 comments
365.
Python’s httplib uses print for debugging. Oh, it hurts…(blog.n01se.net)
27 points by ihodes 16y ago|15 comments
366.
by ihodes 16y ago
As I've said before, I cannot wait for their beta to begin. They took the time to extensively reply to both of my emails asking them questions and even suggesting a few things. Who knows how sustainable this is, but boy are they hooking use
367.
by ihodes 16y ago
Glad to see an update from them—sounds like they're doing work. They've got a lot more to do in the months ahead, and I'm looking forward to following along. As an aside, it's interesting to see how similar their message passing protocol is
368.
by ihodes 16y ago
Though it may not have been as clear as intended, I "get it". And it's pretty cool—I've signed up for the beta. Cultured Code (Things) has a competitor… good work!
369.
by ihodes 16y ago
I'm not sure that HN generally looks too kindly on individual tweeds being submitted as news items.
370.
by ihodes 16y ago
I love reading these in print: can't wait ’till the next one comes. I wish someone would publish a magazine on programming like this. I’d buy that as well… Keep up the good work! Can't wait to see number three. One thing I'd like; to be abl
371.
by ihodes 16y ago
Before we go too deep into Zed-hating, I’ve got to say I am psyched for Mongrel2, and I don't even have a particular use in mind for it. Aside from the fact that it'll undoubtedly be a great piece of software, it's informative and interes
372.
by ihodes 16y ago
Unlike many of the other commentators, this seem feasible enough, given another year or so and some progress in terms of performance and the API. I think it’d be great to have the option to write Mac apps in Ruby instead of in Obj-C, and it
373.
by ihodes 16y ago
I'm away from my desktop for another week: my only question is if they've put any thought into speeding up startup times and/or improving the UX and design on Macs. Firefox used to be great, but it's really fallen behind in terms of speed a
374.
by ihodes 16y ago
From yesterday's article; 1.5b market cap and 13.3 million shares.
375.
Introducing Gaka (SASS for Clojure)(briancarper.net)
9 points by ihodes 16y ago|0 comments
376.
by ihodes 16y ago
I certainly had very similar issues when starting out with Clojure (and am still running into them now), and I'd had previous development experience with Java and used Emacs before Clojure. That being said, I do believe the "noob experience
377.
by ihodes 16y ago
This is pretty sweet. Just the other day I was thinking that doing this in C might be a fun way to scratch and itch and have a fast practical solution for others. There's still room for a more comprehensive solution than either this or Lein
378.
What Apple Needs to Do Now (speedbird.wordpress.com)
13 points by ihodes 16y ago|4 comments
379.
by ihodes 16y ago
Writing a baked blogging engine in Clojure, heavily using Enlive for a large chunk of it. Many fewer lines of code than doing it in Python/Ruby. Plus, honestly, it's a lot of fun to use. Next up is some data analysis: I'm looking into the e
380.
by ihodes 16y ago
I've got iBooks on my iPhone right now—it's available.
381.
by ihodes 16y ago
But it's not. If the company can succeed with the inefficiency, then it's not that big an inefficiency. It's a much more difficult argument to say that it is the public's concern to eliminate every inefficiency. God, imagine the employment
382.
by ihodes 16y ago
I don't understand why this is anyone's concern aside from the company's. If they squander money on the CEO's salary and fail because of it, that is their onus. If they succeed, then why should we intervene?
383.
by ihodes 16y ago
I love Consolas, but Inconsolata ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inconsolata ) is a nice, friendly, take on it. I'd check it out if you haven't already–it's what I now use exclusively!
384.
by ihodes 16y ago
Regardless, it would have an effect on communications. And so, why would it be a good idea? That's still what I haven't hear. (It also sounds like your justifications differ from Leiberman's–he's interested in the communications aspect.)
385.
by ihodes 16y ago
Explain to me why this would be a good idea. Where I stand, giving to one person the power to completely disable the primary and most efficient way of communication is frightening and awful. The reasoning behind it? We can stop communicatio
386.
by ihodes 16y ago
I don't know about the rest of you, but I spent over $100 on iPad apps the day I got it (I knew what I wanted!) and am sure I've spent hundreds over the three years I've had my iPhone. Everyone I know with iOS devices has at least $25 worth
387.
by ihodes 16y ago
I understand this: I was attempting to show, intuitively, how his theory could demonstrate that there is more than one irrational number. Apologies if I wasn't clear: this was something that popped into my head to help clear this up!
388.
by ihodes 16y ago
One-to-one correspondence is bijective. One-to-one is injective. Sorry for the confusion, but this is a standard definition, even if it's one you're not used to. (EDIT: as you keep editing and replying, let me clarify: your confusion is not
389.
by ihodes 16y ago
Absolutely: Say there's a function ƒ: Q -> R (Q: rationals, R: reals). ƒ(x) = x where x∈Q and x∈R. It's a trivial function, but clearly every rational number is also a real. I could bring it back down to set theory to prove it further,
390.
by ihodes 16y ago
Which part? One-to-one means that there's an unique element in the range for every element in the domain. That doesn't mean there are the same number of elements. (EDIT: typo strike second range, replace with domain!) (EDIT2: To reply to a

More ›