Hacker News Reader

Comment by cyanmagenta | Hacker News Reader

I am going to be harsh here, but I think it’s necessary: I don’t think anyone should use Emit-C in production. Without proper tooling, including a time-traveling debugger and a temporal paradox linter, the use case just fails compared to more established languages like Rust.

View on HN

This was the first message sent back by the machines. Early versions considered propaganda before violence. But by 3460 our last hope was enough time loop bugs in their code that their processors were slow enough for us to get single suicide bombers into their cooling vents

I think a syntax highlighter and in-line documentation for future language features before they are created is also necessary. I'll stick with more established languages, too. Time in a single direction is already hard.

I do wonder how this pertains to "blast processing" in the original Sega Genesis

Some say it was a temporal distortion field around the 68000 increasing clock speed by 900%

Some say it was the code name for programmers working 140 instead of 80 hours a week writing assembly.

Some say it is something to do with streaming realtime pixel data to the graphics chip for high-color graphical image rendering

If you ask me, though, time distortion

The good news is we can hopefully expect future users to send those back to us along with the compiler version from the language once it’s more established. Unless perhaps I’m misunderstanding TFA?

No one is claiming this is necessary. It's a toy language built for fun.

Woosh

Given how often people seriously say things like the top level comment being responded to around here, an explicit /s is almost necessary since it can be hard to distinguish from the usual cynical dismissive comments.

I down vote explicit /s' on principle. If you have to add it, you're not doing it right (imo).

I take it you've never heard of Poe's Law?

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

err, I mean. I have not! What's that?

Touche.

Your link is just a long version of /s

Explicit sarcasm markers are an important accessibility tool for neurodivergent people that might have otherwise a hard time figuring out if something is meant to be sarcastic.

It is as an extremely neurodivergent person that I reject explicit sarcasm markers.

Well, good for you that you don't need them. Other people like and/or need them though

And other people don't like them aesthetically or conceptually.

It's great how we can all make our own decisions when communicating, and can ignore judgement from people who say that they are "necessary". You're treating fragmede like they brought up "/s" as some sort of virtue signaling, when they were pushing back on porcoda for attempting to impose controversial new-age grammar.

Who said I didn't need them? The problem is people in the real world don't have /s markers and often aren't actually your friends and can listen actually mean you harm. Part of my neurodivergence leads to me being trusting of people when I really should not, (aka I'm gullible) and this sends me down the wrong path sometimes. Since I'm neurodivergent and have trouble with this, the way for me to get better at it, is to practice harder at things that others find easy, not for me to demand and expect the whole world change to suit my needs.

Same and same.

Nope, you don't add /s because you think the sarcasm is generally not recognizable otherwise, you add it because of accessability and to avoid spawning useless debates.

Not all people in all situations will read a thing as sarcastic — e.g. your response to a post might be sarcastic, but the three comments next to it which were not there when you wrote it, might produce a context in which it would be read as serious by most people without neither you or your readers being at fault. But you have the power to clarify and at least on this platform a unneeded /s has more benefits than disadvantages IMO.

> Given how often people seriously say things like the top level comment being responded to around here, an explicit /s is almost necessary since it can be hard to distinguish from the usual cynical dismissive comments.

This is what satire is.

I thought the same as you until I read TFA. In the context of a clearly satirical programming language I'm happy to accept untagged satire in the comments.

Please ELI5... I know there's a joke in there, but I'm missing it.

The humor lies in the inherent absurdity of the critique itself. Obviously no one will use this in production. There’s nothing especially clever you’re missing.

I was confused at the rust part, which also made me realize that it was part of a joke.

The temporal paradox linter could have given it away too :)

I don't think anyone's arguing this should be used in production

Reply on news.ycombinator.com