zsck

3 ms·

1.
by zsck 8y ago
This is pretty clearly not the case. Apple and Facebook are companies, not platforms. The platforms these companies develop are wildly successful and loved by developers. I think you may be too focused on how developers decide a platform th
2.
by zsck 8y ago
A lot of folks seem to think this kind of technology needs to be marketed or launched the way a hip Silicon Valley startup should be. I understand how the argument that critical mass is the necessary ingredient for success would appeal to p
3.
by zsck 8y ago
You can’t seriously be comparing rebuilding arbitrary software to building an atomic weapon.
4.
by zsck 8y ago
I don’t think that’s entirely true. A lot of the ideas talked about in this article and that most people have already become familiar with are not very abstract. If you tried to build a large application out of nothing but pure function app
5.
by zsck 8y ago
You might be able to foster a deeper appreciation for some of these ideas by playing with Elm a little bit. Some time ago, they implemented time-travel in the standard debugger, and its a really wonderful feature. The site also has some dem
6.
by zsck 9y ago
I'd argue that's not entirely true. Consider, for example, the fact that corporate prisons exist in America. I would say there is a difference in governance, but I hesitate to speculate about cultural differences.
7.
by zsck 9y ago
The parent post shouldn't be interpreted as dismissing the argument because it isn't interesting but because it has been beaten to death. It's the kind of argument that has been had from every meaningful angle and the program
8.
Using “capabilities” to design safer, more expressive APIs in Rust(zsck.co)
3 points by zsck 9y ago|1 comments
9.
by zsck 9y ago
This is an incredibly common stance, and it's also very obviously problematic. No one is saying that your experience in software is invalid or that you're wrong about "these modern frameworks" having been wrong in their