philh

13 ms·

31.
by philh 6y ago
No. Like I said, I've only worked on one Elm app, and that one doesn't let model logic be modified by any page (with some well-defined exceptions). But it's what I'd expect to sneak in if we hadn't architectured it
32.
by philh 6y ago
> Maybe you are right, but it’s not your place, as a language designer, to dictate that. I disagree with Evan on this question and many others, but I just don't understand your criticism here. That seems like exactly a language desi
33.
by philh 6y ago
> Maybe because they have a sense of ownership over it by virtue of merely using it As a remark: I've been accused of feeling ownership over Elm. What I actually felt was investment in Elm, which is different. And I think it'
34.
by philh 6y ago
The new type signature is updatePersonalInformation : PersonalInformationMsg -> Model -> (PersonalInformationModel, Cmd PersonalInformationMsg) -> (Model, Cmd Msg) I know the point was "this i
35.
by philh 6y ago
I've never tried it your way, so maybe I'm missing something here. But thinking in terms of pages seems like a very useful abstraction to me. I can't keep the whole application state in my head at once, so I want to be able t
36.
by philh 6y ago
> Your final paragraph hints at the kind of engineering that inevitably begins to appear as a workaround to solving the wrong problem in the first place. All of it is extra complexity that doesn't need to exist at all. I agree it&#x
37.
by philh 6y ago
> These functions almost inevitably end up needing something from the top-level application-wide state, so you’ll often see some type signature like this: > updatePersonalInformation > : Model > -> (Persona
38.
Specialized Labor and Counterfactual Compensation(reasonableapproximation.net)
1 points by philh 6y ago|0 comments
39.
by philh 6y ago
Fair question. I don't necessarily have something specific in mind, I just have a generally high prior of things like: the law is complicated; DMCA is complicated; things don't necessarily mean what they sound like they'd mea
40.
by philh 6y ago
> You can't host something publicly, available via common, general purpose technology and then claim protection when someone uses this general purpose technology to obtain it. I'm not saying this is wrong, but how do you know?
41.
Against Boots Theory(reasonableapproximation.net)
2 points by philh 6y ago|0 comments
42.
by philh 6y ago
I read that as "if they aren't going to be effective". Not a claim that they are effective, but a claim that they're intended to be effective.
43.
by philh 6y ago
I agree some people do that. But not everyone who says "this state of the world is just, because <something you disagree with>" is doing that. How do you tell the people who are doing that apart from the people who just disa
44.
by philh 6y ago
Without seeing the scores, if the more recent comment is on top, we don't know which has more votes. But in fact, both have been on top at different times. > I imagine just by sheer nature of the power law that some upvotes are peop
45.
by philh 6y ago
Whenever someone says "this state of the world is just, because <something you disagree with>", it's easy to say "that's the just world fallacy talking". But it's basically contentless. Really you&#x
46.
by philh 6y ago
> getting paid to lie (which is, fundamentally, what advertising is). Not fundamentally. A lot of advertising may be well be outright lying, or close enough as makes no difference. But... I used to go by a shop named "Cards Galore&q
47.
by philh 6y ago
Not a comment on the article, but the CAPTCHA before it seems weird and kind of sketchy. > Why do I have to complete a CAPTCHA? > Completing the CAPTCHA proves you are a human and gives you temporary access to the web property. Okay,
48.
by philh 6y ago
Revenue seems like a weird thing to look at though. If you only get more profit by hiring more employees, that doesn't change how much you can afford to pay your employees. How do they compare in terms of profit/employee?
49.
In my culture: the responsibilities of open source maintainers(reasonableapproximation.net)
1 points by philh 6y ago|0 comments
50.
by philh 6y ago
> It is time for us to nationalize Facebook. Note that even accepting your previous paragraphs, this doesn't follow. Most public utilities are already not nationalized afaik; I'm not american, but none of my electricity, gas, w
51.
by philh 6y ago
> The obvious, implicit motivation behind an article like this is to help other users make the same decision. This is not obvious to me. Why do you assume the motivation is "to help other users make the same decision" and not &
52.
by philh 6y ago
> The topic was someone saying in detail, "Here is why I have chosen not to be an Elm user, and why you shouldn't be either." When someone is saying divisive things, I think it's important to be clear and precise abou
53.
by philh 6y ago
Yes.
54.
by philh 6y ago
> I guarantee nobody truly cares that you fork Elm. One of my coworkers once edited the elm compiler to remove the native code restrictions, and placed it on NPM. Evan emailed him and asked him to take it down. There may be more to the s
55.
by philh 7y ago
> It's because I've tried to follow these discussions, and usually it resolves around that. Fair enough. That hasn't been my experience, but it's not important. > It would end up being just another coffeescript wit
56.
by philh 7y ago
> I'm happy with Elm and I don't want to sacrifice the spirit of it, just to get "big" like react or whatever. This part seems to come out of nowhere? Your parent disagrees with certain design choices, but they didn&#
57.
by philh 7y ago
We've been using it for almost two years. I wrote this just after the 0.19 release and still stand by it; I wouldn't start a project in Elm again until I'd explored more options (in particular purescript). https://
58.
by philh 7y ago
In one model I found online[1], the closest word to "king" was "kings" (0.71) and the second closest was "queen" (0.65). [1] http://bionlp-www.utu.fi/wv_demo/ (making sure to select the En
59.
by philh 9y ago
You're making two separate claims, and both of them are very different to the one I originally answered. I'm not really interested in going further with this.
60.
by philh 9y ago
I interpreted their comment as "here's an example that will always work", and I appreciated it in that light.

More ›