pwdisswordfish4

12 ms·

61.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
The comment was a direct response to the other (about how much effort it takes to do open source [on GitHub]). I can't make full sense of your questions, but what is possible to make out doesn't seem to follow from the comment yo
62.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
This question doesn't make sense. The comment is vanilla JS as "a faster Rails", not "vanilla JS is faster than TypeScript"...
63.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Nadia Eghbal worked at GitHub, so her perspective will be skewed by the dominant influence. The GitHub way of working has only been around since GitHub launched. Accordingly, the free software and open source communities that predate GitHu
64.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
‘Platonic’ doesn’t mean ‘celibate’. It means ‘pure, idealised, undistorted, uncontaminated, archetypal’. Which is a pretty fitting description of these people’s relationships to each other: as co-parents and pretty much nothing else.
65.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Intel went with Minix for their ME.
66.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> .Net Not a programming language. (And you seemed to have missed the point; a "fast language" is essentially a nonsense term.) > Anything that makes an actual attempt at optimising for performance. So something like any of
67.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
The question asking for clarification is itself vague. Examples of which part? Look at JS that's written for serious applications today, identify the stuff that you'd label as "idiomatic", and then look at code that was
68.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
What most people have in mind as "idiomatic JS" isn't that. It's usually meant to refer to some patterns that appeared and started getting popular around 8 years ago. And often, code written in this not-idiomatic way w
69.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Ruling out the truth of something is information-free, and mentioning an RFC by ID is information-free. Got it.
70.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Why have no die-hard, many-times-burned Mac fans not yet picked up GNUStep and launchd and polished them into an acceptable replacement for the 2010-era Mac desktop? Most Mac developers don't seem to be that kind of developer. (So
71.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
These are false/misleading statements, not questions: > I remember something that previous versions were for webapps only. > I remember that OAuth forced the user to include client secret in app's binary. This is not actuall
72.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
A large part of this comes down to the venue. The early part of GitHub really exemplified the "move fast and break things" mentality. GitHub broke the software world's ability to grapple with bugs, both in affordances i.e
73.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> there is underlying problem No, you haven't ever defined _any_ problem, only abstract things that bother you. There is only one problem that matters: writing a (correct) program. If you can do it without meta-programming, then yo
74.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> that's you who don't understand Because your comments are incomprehensible. > I've shown particular code that is error prone in JS but is ok in other languages. It's not OK in Java. It's not OK in C. It&#x
75.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> I don't see what the "default" has to do with what I'm saying. Indeed. Based on your other comments in the thread, it looks like you're committed to not understanding. > The parent post was literally talking
76.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
... what? > Do you ever type "prototype"? Not every day or even once in an average week, unless you're doing something wrong. > You would get same result in "dead" files. You don't understand. You shoul
77.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
... what? This comment is incomprehensible. What does it have to do with the parent comment (besides exemplifying the "teenager left at home for the first time" and creating-a-mess stuff)? None of this crazy reflective, meta-l
78.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> “fast” languages What are those?
79.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Many of the gotchas wouldn't ever show up if only people committed to writing JS as sensibly as they write their programs in other languages when they're being forced to do things a certain way. But when it comes to JS and even
80.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Modern JS really isn't even compatible with JavaScript. When people talk about "modern JS" it usually includes TypeScript and a bunch of NodeJS-isms, none of which are compatible with TC-39. It's only by proximity (and
81.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Every now and then comments like this one pop up (or even a bit more frequently than the way that sounds). But it's hard to understand how they get written up and posted. It only makes sense if you assume the author has dozed off hal
82.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
The real story here is not the 60 lines, but the literate programming style used for it. Aside from that, this approach is very similar to Marijn Haverbeke's (the CodeMirror author) generator, although your 60 lines does lean more heav
83.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
> Considering the contract they landed earlier this year many of us would be really happy to fail so successfully financially. This is worded as if it's a retort to the previous comment, but... how is it supposed to be? The claim is
84.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
In that case, here it is in one line, producing byte-for-byte identical output to the snippet above: pangeadoc -c style.css ./ -O ./_site (pangeadoc, of course, is a fork of pandoc that when invoked as above behaves exact
85.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Correction: would-be perfectly viable, if it weren't for Electron apps and JavaScript-ladden websites.
86.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Between ‘most vexing parse’, ‘static initialization order fiasco’ and ‘abominable function types’, C++ probably has more terms for miserable failures of design than any other language. That has to count for something.
87.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Hell, can you show an example from the author's own company? That company's about page has a blurb on contributing back to open source that seems to be on par with what Amazon does to contribute to open source, and the author is
88.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
It's off-the-charts irony to point ESR's observations to try to validate the author's response here, and to frame it in the terms of some monolithic "open source culture". The brogrammer devops culture in 2020 is s
89.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Open source development doesn't have to be more costly than closed source, except in this case it might be if you end up believing the people who tell you that the best way to be successful is to cut off your ability of ever again ge
90.
by pwdisswordfish4 6y ago
Well Mozilla spends over $50 million year-over-year on non-development costs that have generally proven to be completely ineffective: their marketing budget. So a one-time $100k cost is a fraction of a percent of what they already squander

More ›