Sssnake

>>random redditard

>OK, this is HN.

I believe that was his/her point. I'm clearly not the first person to have noticed that your contributions are few and far between, with much garbage taking up that in between. Your posts would be welcomed on reddit, here they serve only to drag HN down.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. You made a bizarre assumption that the financial world is hard for haskell to break into, when both history and the current behavior of financial firms says otherwise.

You just quoted something saying exactly what I said, while acting like you disagree. Once again, a license is special permission. That is precisely what it is, that is the whole point. Saying "you don't have to have special permission because you get special permission" is insane.

Haskell is already heavily used in finance, and they chose to go this route because all the feedback they were getting from financial firms wanting to use haskell. Your little bubble doesn't generalize to the whole world.

>so why an arbitrary restriction saying once X years are up, you can't sell it anymore (or can't effectively since anyone can have it for free).

That is backwards. We set up an arbitrary restriction saying people can't reproduce it, and that is the only reason this artificially created business exists. There is no reason for this arbitrary restriction to extend indefinitely. The business would exist just fine with 20 year copyright, so we should do that.

Yes, it is needed. That is what the license is, special permission.

>And Haskell's rules are a pain.

How?

I don't know how you think that was the point. He doesn't say anything like that. In fact he takes the exact opposite position when dealing with parsing, saying to just write more code. Why would something which literally requires no extra effort (producing useful error messages without semicolons) be misdirected effort, while writing a more complex parser is cool?

I think it is worth considering that perhaps obvious architecture is the wrong thing to make, rather than existing languages being wrong for making it.

>and the brags need to be objectively accurate

No, it just needs to be convincing. Plenty of convincing lies (or unproven claims) are used to sell programming languages.

This is a good example of how hn is suffering from the real slashdot effect lately. That is, people posting authoritative sounding but completely wrong information and getting upvoted for it.

Depth doesn't come from complex controls, but complex controls are almost always needed to be able to play a game with any depth.

>Just like you wouldn't want to encounter monadic IO in raw >>= form

Yes I would. I would much rather see "getLine >>= putStrLn" than a 2 line do block.

100k is huge, period. Whether or not a huge dependency is acceptable depends on the project. Yes, we know it depends on the project, that was the point of the site. The whole point is "if you are making a library, and don't really need jquery, please don't force that extra dependency on users of your library".

Because 100k is not measly, it is huge. And jquery is hundreds of times slower than the perfectly fine native methods.

>I think he might mean "shaking things up" (which Node certainly has done)

How has it "shaken things up"? It is yet another irrelevant mess of crap a few dumb web monkeys use. There's one of those every other month.

Because those things are actually hugely important, he spends the rest of the article showing how important they are. He is simply too ignorant to recognize his own ignorance, and revels in this fact. He starts out with "I dun need no fancy book learnin!" and you don't see how it is anti-intellectual?

>Am I the only one that kind of thinks most websites should just be static pages?

No, the majority of people agree. And contrary to what javascript happy dumbasses keep repeating, the majority of new development is absolutely not doing everything client side. It is sad that the web is so fad driven, but this stupid fad will pass just like flash intros and spinning under construction animated gifs.

Irony overload. What was wrong with that paper again? Correlation != causation?

The original article isn't very long. If you want to discuss it, you could, I dunno, try reading it? Yes, it is from google trends. Just like the data on yahoo and google itself that they compared it to. So no, there is no rational basis to assume that the data indicates people are getting more familiar with the internet.

Literally nothing you said has anything to do with me, or anything I said. Did you reply to the wrong post by accident or something?

I can't see the irony I just pointed out? Are you sure about that?

>I guess that's true if you consider being for legalized sex work the exact same as being against legalized sex work

Why are you being so blatantly dishonest? She is not for legalized sex work, she is for making purchasing sex a crime. That is not legalizing sex work, it is simply not making the prostitutes side criminal.

>"She views prostitution as violence against women and favors laws like those in Sweden, where the sale of sexual services is legal"

And being a customer is a crime. That is not legal. Again, why such incredibly dishonesty?

>If you interpret viewing prostitution as violence the same as viewing sex between consensual adults as violence

Prostitution is sex between consenting adults.

>In what ways do organizations like NOW actively fight against equality

Actively campaigning against laws that would make joint custody the default?

>scream hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues?

You've seriously never seen the UofT videos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

>The only reason "lunatic" feminists seem more visible is because people feel compelled to point out the most extreme views of "lunatic" feminists every single time there is a discussion of feminism.

No, that is not the only reason. The fact that their beliefs are mainstream, and not a fringe at all is a major reason they seem more visible. These are the bulk of the women's studies departments at universities. These are the most mainstream organizations like NOW. They are the ones actively fighting against equality, and screaming hate at men for daring to want to talk about men's issues.

>When in fact her position is nowhere close to that

Her position is exactly that, and she has repeatedly campaigned to prevent legalized prostitution. She literally views consensual sex between adults as a violent act, with the woman always the victim and the man always the aggressor. You even quoted as much, yet you act like it is a lie? That does not seem like the actions of someone engaging in an honest, good faith attempt at discussion.

>HN readers in these gender discussions are so outright condescending, hateful, and knowingly, deliberately unreasonable-- not to mention "othering"

Seriously, wtf people?

>Thank you for being a voice of reason

Oh, I thought you were referring to the disgusting tripe you replied to. Wow, amazing how people can view things differently huh?

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that netbsd and openbsd users demand the lastest in temporary, throw away, bloated, buggy shitware that linux distos are jumping on at any given moment. The fact that they don't use that crap is their main selling point. And no, netbsd is not "virtual insignifance", openbsd is not out of funds (they got over $100k just when they asked for $20k recently, and idiots take that to mean they are dead?). FreeBSD is not the most up to date, it is the most linux-like. Why do you think it is so impossible for them to also start using this pile of shit if that is what their userbase wants?

What do dependencies have to do with anything? If I make a huge massive bloated mess of shit, it isn't suddenly "lean" because I included everything in it rather than linking to it as a dependency.

>The problem with this traditional unix approach is that in addition to init, pm-utils, inetd, cron, etc you end up having thousands of lines of shell scripts that glue all this together in a big brittle mess.

No, I don't. Typical linux distros may, but I sure as hell don't. I have a very simple, easy to read and debug set of shell scripts that work very well: http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/etc/rc?...

>I still do not understand what problem upstart or systemd are trying to solve

Linux systems are still too much like unix. There are still some simple components that do a single, simple task, and can be easily debugged. This is clearly not acceptable, and does not fit with the rest of a modern linux distro. It needs to do more things, be less reliable, and be harder to figure out when something has gone wrong. Systemd and upstart both solve these problems nicely.

There's only 5 web frameworks for haskell, and that's a problem somehow?

>I can count only three companies (not blogs or framework websites) that use Haskell to serve websites

I can count more than three just that I've worked at. I think "companies using haskell that some random guy happens to know about" isn't a very useful metric.

>And learning Haskell is very demanding

No, it isn't.