madmax96

26 ms·

211.
by madmax96 10y ago
> Other reasons are the case-insensitivity and complexity > of current Lisp systems. I hope they're not trying to imply that CL is case-insensitive... This is definitely an opionated language, and that can be a go
212.
by madmax96 10y ago
Becoming like every other technology park is __bad__. Slightly off-topic, but I'd argue that right now we're in a bubble and that many technology companies are over-valued. Everyone thinks they're a unicorn. Unfortunately, mo
213.
by madmax96 10y ago
> The Docker orchestration capabilities are opt-in; they must be activated by the user. Though not opting in may lead to backward compatibility issues down the road. Whoa, citation needed! Not activating swarm features has the same proba
214.
by madmax96 10y ago
First the site claims that rent will be slashed by fifty percent, then it recommends a 65-35 split. Also: realghostroommate@gmail.com? Seriously?
215.
by madmax96 10y ago
This is actually wrong. You can be added to the `docker` group. On Docker for OS X you also don't need root.
216.
by madmax96 10y ago
> simply because there is absolutely no ambiguity between a > function named LIST and a variable named LIST. To a machine, correct. To a human, this is not always the case. > But then you can't access p:fo
217.
by madmax96 10y ago
> A common configuration format for all of them Easier said than done. Some applications don't require the complexity of JSON/TOML, and it's best for them to use a simple and regular language to make tools like c
218.
by madmax96 10y ago
Readability matters. Specifying the namespace of `list` communicates one and only one idea: I am referring to a particular binding of `list`. By leaving out the namespace qualifier when you shadow a symbol you can only add to the cognitive
219.
by madmax96 10y ago
That is convenient, but keep in mind that namespaces solve this problem: (defn foo [list] (clojure.core/list "length" (count list))) Or, in the case of CL, we could do this: (defun foo (list) (
220.
by madmax96 10y ago
> But when you don't need those features Ah, in a purely functional language you always need those features :)
221.
by madmax96 10y ago
> those just add more cognitive burden, in my opinion. Of course that is a valid viewpoint, but remember that using a function (instead of splicing syntax) has the added advantage of being composable and applicable . These t
222.
by madmax96 10y ago
> subvec doesn't seem to support negative indices You don't need negative indices to define a function like `butlast` (or any function for that matter): (defn my-butlast [vec] (if (empty? vec) nil
223.
by madmax96 10y ago
> As a Python programmer, those sound like a poor > tradeoff for slicing syntax. Because Python has a static syntactic system. To Lispers, it makes no difference whether or not it's slicing syntax or a function ca
224.
by madmax96 10y ago
I like Clojure because it's a Lisp 1 and the novelty of having MVCC implemented in my language. With respect to the Lisp 1/2 debate, I hate how this: (defun foo (g y) (g y)) (foo #'- 10) ; error Is an err
225.
by madmax96 10y ago
Agreed that the car data is more reliable than the human. But since we don't have the logs themselves, every conclusion we come to is pure conjecture and obscured by cloudy language.
226.
by madmax96 10y ago
This is __very__ ambiguous: Mr. Pang states that: > the car suddenly veered right And later that he: > managed to step on the break, turn the car left and > stopped the car So, that's __two__ steering mo
227.
by madmax96 10y ago
But Autopilot users are supposed to be watching the road. Assuming this is the case, if the user had seen the vehicle he ought to have applied the breaks.
228.
by madmax96 10y ago
> Who asked what you like? That's irrelevant. Parent did, when they asked: > Why can't you say the same for v8? My point was they did not know my opinion on the subject and to make an argument about my per
229.
by madmax96 10y ago
> why is it bad for the industry? I already explained how Microsoft has a history of violating people's trusts, and how an investment in Microsoft's technologies is therefore risky. > Why wasn't it bad
230.
by madmax96 10y ago
So your counter-argument is this: > Or perhaps because many people have been conditioned to > dislike anything Microsoft does without actually > analyzing it's impact or relevance. > Certainly it seems
231.
by madmax96 10y ago
That's not related to the conversation at hand. Who said I like using v8?
232.
by madmax96 10y ago
I'm not concerned about Node on Chakra necessarily -- its developers are probably smart enough to avoid this issue; I'm concerned about applications running on Node on Chakra. Unless you avoid using __any__ non-standard behavior,
233.
by madmax96 10y ago
Being "open source" is meaningless if there isn't a community actively building the software and no one understands (or very few) understand the code outside the organization. Open source is luring developers into a false sen
234.
by madmax96 10y ago
Easy: embrace, extend, and extinguish. If Microsoft behaves as they have done in the past, this is what will happen: 1. Make Node run on top of Chakra [x] 2. Give Chakra non-standard features and sell communities on them while pointing out
235.
by madmax96 10y ago
Exactly this. If you're on example.com/documents/foo and think there might be something relevant on example.com/documents/, try and gain access without coming across a warning or terms of service reasonably located,
236.
by madmax96 10y ago
>Requests with SQL in them shouldn't be illegal. Intent matters here. If little "Johnny DROP TABLE" causes a problem with his input but there is no evidence he did so deliberately, I don't think a sane person would ar
237.
by madmax96 10y ago
I disagree. If there's a bug in the server and someone exploits it to gain unauthorized access -- even if the user has been warned via terms of service that doing this is unauthorized -- then by your interpretation this shouldn't
238.
by madmax96 10y ago
This. Plus, using a mutex requires that you obtain all your locks in a consistent order, etc. which opens up a whole can of concurrency worms. All you need is some intern who didn't properly read the documentation writing code that cou
239.
by madmax96 10y ago
Ah. It seems I have misunderstood some of the Racket documentation. Thanks for the comment -- helped me out:) Also adding that what I was doing in Guile, Common Lisp, and Clojure was sloppy . After searching for the case macro, saying &#x2
240.
by madmax96 10y ago
I strongly dislike Racket's macro system, from my admittedly limited usage of it. Does Racket have a way to address the need to, say, create a dispatching table during syntax expansion and read from that table at runtime? I don't

More ›