How about contributing something to the discussion?
1. It is an IDE's job, to keep track of changes of individual expressions in the code of a project.
2. This information should be stored separately from the source code files, as a meta-data to the project, not the individual files.
3. I don't need a solution for a problem I do not have.
4. The query language is ugly.
5. I do not want to use any "free" commercial service for a solution which can be implemented as a emacs-lisp package.
6. I see nothing in this blog post of any interest.
7. I have no over-excitement just because something comes from Rich Hickey.
Ahh, sour grapes and/or jealousy. Yes, it IS obvious now.
Is the IDE supposed to have it's own revision history stored somewhere? I understand how it might be an IDE's job to recognize individual functions but there's no way it is supposed to keep track of changes. That is entirely the source control's job.
> 2. This information should be stored separately from the source code files, as a meta-data to the project, not the individual files.
What information? This doesn't change your code in any way, it analyzes it and stores the data resulting from that in the datomic db.
3, 4, 6 are entirely subjective, it's rather clear plenty of others find this interesting and useful. I do agree that the query language isn't pretty.
5. Maybe someone will dislike Datomic enough to implement this as an emacs package. The source for codeq itself is open source, datomic is only a storage backend.
7. Let's be straight, judging from the points you made you certainly didn't go into this with no bias. Some of us don't get angry just because it comes from Hickey.
I am not a programmer, I solve problems using symbolic representations. Anything that lets me reason about solving this problems at a higher level is a net gain for me. I've been wishing for something like this for the last 13 years. This is fantastic in my mind, I want people to run like hell with it.