_isus

I’m one of the software developers with Open Law Library (http://www.openlawlib.org/). We needed our VS Code extension, Codify, to communicate with our codification engine (basically a compiler for laws) which is written in Python. So we needed a native Python language server. We found Palantir's excellent python-language-server, but instead of targeting Python directly, we needed one targeting legal XML. Basically, we needed a pythonic generic language server. Thus was born, pygls (pronounced like "pie glass").

Our goal with pygls is to make it incredibly easy for anybody to write a language server for anything in Python. We have created a thin pythonic layer over the Language Server Protocol - giving the developer the core of what they need without getting in the way. Currently, it targets Python 3.5+ and has support for sync, async and threaded (using an @thread decorator) features and commands.

Python is one of our favorite languages, and VS Code one of our favorite editors. We hope pygls will make it possible for people to build many new and exciting language servers that leverage the power, ecosystem, and flexibility of Python.

This wouldn't be possible without Daniel Elero's hard work. Thank you, Daniel!

It seems one small approach in the right direction would be for someone+ to provide a discovery/marketing service for helping spotlight, bring to the forefront those working on the infrastructure-type projects. Thinking more along the lines of a podcast, blog, etc. that would generate revenue from sponsors. Akin to Changelog or other podcasts, but specifically focused on the behind-the-scenes/infrastructure/maintaince type stuff - the "backstory" if you will. Folks could donate to this service and funds could be funneled to the highlighted projects/developers.

The "marketing service" angle would be to provide free marketing to these types of projects. Inviting folks as guests, writing about projects, etc.

It does solve the overall problem for everyone, but it would be going in the general right direction. There may be efforts like this already, but I am not aware of them.

+ I do not have the time it would take to do this well.

Finally, we get hot exit. :)

I didn't - it just reminded me that some might take it in a more general way than I intended. :)

The question is intentionally generic as I am trying to find out what most folks would do if they were starting with something fresh. Your comment reminded me I needed to narrow the focus a bit. I edited the question to add an assumption that this is a Web API.

subtitle: "Robotics pioneer Sebastian Thrun is building an open-source autonomous car."

"Swift calling convention was ported to ARM."

Edit: simplify

Death Tax hike?

Having the month and year of the "interview" would be helpful. Down-the-road, it will help give context to the information. A neat idea would be to allow for follow-up "interviews" later.

I like that you can filter on solo vs. multiple founders. Very cool.

Thanks for your response. This is the type of thing I am wanting to do, even if not with CHICKEN Scheme. :)

To clarify ... I am seeking advice on whether choosing a single non-JS language for "all" form factors is reasonable given existing languages, libraries, etc.

> "It either is proved wrong or it is not." > I do not understand what you mean by that. > Consider an 800 page physics textbook, where on page 234 it says that glass is super-cooled liquid. This is wrong. Does that one wrong statement prove the entire book to be incorrect? Certainly not.

The Bible is not merely a physics textbook or work of fiction, it is the very Word of God. It is on a different level. It is reasonable to expect it to be held to a higher standard. Having said that, I do not claim to be a scientist. Still, with the Bible being in English since at least the late 1300's, not to mention the dates of the original text ~1,300 years before that, there has been plenty of time to demolish the Biblical accounts. This is well before the Scientific Revolution [1]. One example is the account of the worldwide flood in Genesis 6-9 [2]. I have yet to come across anything that definitively proves this to be false. There are plenty of theories to explain things that could also be explained by a worldwide flood, such as the layers of sediment; however, these remain theories.

PaulKeeble stated: "Almost everybody believed the world was flat, then they were proved wrong. So many of the objective "facts" in the bible have been proved scientifically wrong and no such inaccuracy should exist given divine input. If god exists and was on Earth then he is very vindictive desperate for destruction and violence, humanities aim should be to destroy him. Thankfully there is no evidence to say he does beyond a book with obvious flaws."

He is making a positive statement that the Bible has been proven scientifically wrong without providing any supporting evidence. The flat earth argument does not hold water, in my opinion. The following article provides a modern Christian viewpoint on the flat earth vs. round earth as found in the Bible: [3].

It is not until your answer, dalke, that the whole Exodus account is brought up. In it your "proof" is that there seems to be no evidence of millions of Jewish people wandering the the desert for forty years. To which I responded:

>> lack of corroboration does not mean something did not happen

And your responded with:

> That is the non-scientific view held be many Christian apologists. Is there anything besides the Bible where you use that argument, even when all physical and historical evidence strongly points just the opposite?

This is not a "non-scientific view", it is just the truth. (One could even say it is a scientific view, since science should be objective, not making leaps of logic where it cannot be supported. Lack of evidence is not evidence, even if it is surprising.) I am just pointing out that this does not disprove anything. It may be that our techniques, abilities and approaches just aren't up to the task yet. To suggest that this is somehow "unscientific" is to paint folks in a negative light without any substantive reason to do so; it is uncharitable.

> After all, the 'Wicked Bible' from the 1600s, which says "Thou shalt commit adultery", is obviously wrong, but that doesn't somehow prove wrong the rest of that copy of the Bible.

I think it is disingenuous to compare the Holy Bible to the "Wicked Bible".

If you are interested in continuing this conversation elsewhere, please let me know here. Otherwise, I will discontinue following this thread in the near future.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. Thank you.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution [2] https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+6-9&ver... [3] http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c015.html

> I agree with you. But, I disagree that the words of a book about religion is that ultimate truth.

I respect you as an individual, even if we disagree. I respect your right to make that decision. It is my hope that you will reconsider, but I understand if you don't.

> I view my responsibility to be good to others in the best way I can. As you said, truth is truth.

I certainly don't disagree with this. I am not suggesting for a moment that a follower of another religion, an agnostic or an atheist cannot do kind acts or contribute to society. Among my friends are those whom I highly respect who don't agree with me when it comes to faith. I am not saying that it is my exclusive responsibility to seek the truth. It is still my responsibility, though.

> My faith of a religion is neither here nor there, and no one else's concern.

I agree that it is no one else's concern in that I am not responsible for what you choose to do. That doesn't mean that I am not allowed to be concerned for you. (In the sense of wanting you to find what I have found.) I certainly don't want you or anyone to feel like I am cramming something down your throat. If I you have made you feel that way, please accept my apologies.

> PaulKeeble appears to be making the weaker argument "the bible have been proved scientifically wrong", not the stronger claim of "truly disproved the Bible".

That is a straw man argument. It either is proved wrong or it is not.

> Only the parts which overlap with science can be proved or disproved by science.

I am speaking to all of the above.

I am not an archaeologist, so I will have to defer to someone else for supporting evidence. I can say, though, that a lack of corroboration does not mean something did not happen.

> However, it also sums up the views of many on religion in a fairly clear way: Whatever it means to you is yours, only yours. Your neighbor is entirely entitled to decide their own meanings as well.

If by this you mean each person has to decide for themselves, I agree. If you mean that religion is whatever anyone wants to make of it, I disagree. Truth is truth whether I acknowledge it or not. I do not decide what the truth is, it just is. It is my responsibility to seek the truth.

The following passage describes someone who has diligently sought the truth, once it is found:

"The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it." Matthew 13:44-46 (NASB)

> I do appreciate your response, and trust that I'm smiling when I write this without any contempt: when do I get to give up?

And, likewise, I hope you do not feel any contempt from me. When do you get to give up? I do not mean this in a disrespectful way ... I would ask God.

> Maybe it's $DEITY's turn to pick some of the slack. :-)

I just prayed that you will sense His love for you (and maybe even interpret that as picking up some of the slack).

> From my wall of text, one might conclude that I did, indeed, give it a fair and sincere shot.

I, for one, do not fault you for lack of trying. I am just saying don't give up now ... breakthrough could be around the corner. That is what I have prayed for you.

> And I came to a different conclusion that you appear to have. No worries, I'm fine with that, we all make our own journey. I've enjoyed mine, and ...

Ultimately, we all have to choose which path to follow. I respect you for at least giving it serious thought and consideration.

> I hope you enjoy yours.

Overall, yes, but following Jesus Christ does not necessarily make life easier. It certainly isn't boring, though! :)

> How about we take Jesus at his word, and quit being so materialistic?

I agree with you.

> ... but one can go the other way with so much "context" that Jesus himself wouldn't recognize the religion you end up with.

That is sadly what is done a lot of times. Being a follower means I seek to be who Jesus wants me to be. Often this means I have to lay down my view of things and take up His view of things.

> Hence my conclusion that the canon cannot have been divinely inspired.

That is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. What if you are wrong?

> If there's a divine being who wishes a personal relationship with us as individuals, she needs to do a better job getting to the point.

Or, perhaps, we need to listen to God Himself, not others' opinions of God (even our own).

> You and I can't even agree on whether or not this divine being thinks slavery is OK or not.

And we likely can't agree on programming languages or operating systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't program or use operating systems.

> That's some pretty crap writing if something so simple isn't made plain.

Or, we are not accepting His Word as it is, we are too busy letting others add and take away from it. For what it is worth, it is plain enough for a child to understand. I am convinced that a sincere seeker of Truth will find God through His Word, the Bible. Don't give up too soon. It may be just around the corner for you.

Edit: punctuation

I'm not sure you can make that logical leap. Just because I can be disproved does not mean the Bible can be. It just means I can be disproved.

> Why exactly do people need the bible?

Because people can be mistaken, misguided or plain wrong. We need an objective standard from God Himself, to know what is right and true. (Though, He does also provide some basic understanding of truth and beauty through nature, too.)

> Why is it that Christians are so skeptical of actual communication via prayer, that anyone who strongly professes to hear the divine might be suspiciously regarded as mentally ill?

May I suggest the word "Christians" be replaced with "people"? I for one am a Christian and know that people can interact with the supernatural. No need to consider someone mentally ill just because they are more attuned to the spiritual than others (even if not a Christian). One of the longstanding core of the Christian life is to spend time in prayer with God. The Bible acts as a point of reference to know whether our experience is of God or not. There are spiritual beings out there that seek to turn us away from the truth. These are the fallen angels, demons.

> Why are there no more prophets, judges, or anointed kings? Why are there no more miracles?

I for one know of several prophets. I have personally experienced or witnessed miracles. Just because one may not recognize something as a miracle or someone as a prophet does not mean there are none. The unseen world is ever present, both the good and the evil. Our modern society has in the recent past ignored (and some continue to ignore) that it is real just because we have not figured out a way to empirically prove it. The supernatural has the prefix of "super-" because it goes beyond the natural. This does not invalidate science, just as science does not invalidate the supernatural.

> Why do people need a book translated into English to reach the divine?

The Bible has been translated into many more languages than just English. Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic are the original languages used, not English.

> If one were to look at the severe intimacy that Jews and the first Christians experienced with the sacred, a natural thought is to think that Christians have been excommunicated from all spiritual reality.

I'm not sure I disagree with you. There are many examples that would seem to back you up. There are many examples that also refute this. The relationship comes from committing oneself wholly (fully) to follow Jesus Christ. How God chooses to work through and in that person may look different for each person. Just as each person has a unique combination of personality, talents, experiences and opportunities. We can say, though, the trend of a follower of Jesus Christ will be to look more like Him.

> How can this be a spiritual relationship with the Father to all things? How can that be a profession of a connection to spiritual reality?

Perhaps not all who say they have a relationship really know what that even means? This is one more reason we need the Bible - to help us know what God's standard is. If it were left up to me, my standard would not be good enough. My mercy would not be strong enough. My justice would not be complete enough. My ability to see things as they really are and still choose to love would not be pure enough.

Edit: corrected spelling and grammar.

> So many of the objective "facts" in the bible have been proved scientifically wrong and no such inaccuracy should exist given divine input.

Not sure what you are referring to being disproved. It is true that a person's interpretation of the Bible may be disproved, but I am unaware of any source that has truly disproved the Bible. The same cannot be said for many of the theories that are taken as fact.

> If god exists and was on Earth then he is very vindictive desperate for destruction and violence, humanities aim should be to destroy him.

I can understand why you may think that; however, we have to keep in mind that our viewpoint, as humans, is incomplete and imperfect. Further, we have a very limited view of who God is. That is why we need the Bible - to help us see things as He does. It is simple enough for a child to understand, but it is beyond the ability of scholars with years of study and advanced degrees to fully comprehend on their own.

God is a truly just God. He cannot let sin (going our own way instead of following God's path for us) be left alone. That is why He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to die on the cross and conquer death. Jesus took the wrath we deserved onto Himself, so that we could be free.

"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6:23

So, even His justice has mercy mixed in. The one who is "very vindictive desperate for destruction and violence" is Satan, as Jesus Christ states:

"The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." John 10:10

One reason God waits to finally deal with Satan, is so that others can come into a loving relationship with God:

"The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." 2 Peter 3:9

Note: All references are from the NASB.

from the post: "If enough people say something, it must be true, right? No. Check everything, and dare to explore the inconvenient. Perhaps, some of the things you learn might surprise and impress you like they did me. Maybe they will not impress you much. You may be hard to impress and that is OK. Just do not mistake obtuseness for skepticism."

Insightful.

> You can also use kristopolous' console script to search the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10313519.

Could this be included in the page directly?

If you have not already done so, I would recommend choosing a language to invest in, with the goal of becoming proficient in it. The purpose here is to select a language to be your "default" language. Write out a list of the things you value the most in a language and the things you wish to avoid. Examine the languages/paradigms you have already learned. Do any of these meet the criteria you listed (pros/cons)? If so, pick one of these to learn at a deeper level. If none of these are satisfactory, spend some time researching other languages or paradigms. Do other languages/paradigms match your criteria more closely? If so, it may be worth investing the time to learn something new.

I have yet to come across the "perfect" language or paradigm, but I have come across ones that have stretched me to learn new concepts I likely would not have learned otherwise.

One criteria I would not leave off the list is this: "I want to enjoy working with the language/paradigm."

What about Scoop makes it worth resurrecting?

Probably should have 2015 in the title.

"... As part of the inquiry, USGS convened a Scientific Integrity Review Panel to further investigate the matter. The report of inquiry concluded that the laboratory had a “chronic pattern of scientific misconduct” and that “data produced by the Inorganic Section were intentionally manipulated by the line-chemist in charge.” The identified issues predominantly affected coal and water quality research and related assessments." from 2nd paragraph, Pg. 7

Thank you. This is helpful.

So, would you still do a similar approach if you were starting out today?

Edit: fix grammar

> I'm trying to build a 1-person business for quite some time, going back and forth between ideas. Sometimes I think I would like to implement a desktop app, sometimes I feel web apps would be better, sometimes I just want to quit, etc.

I empathize with what you are going through.

> The way I see things now is, if you really want to test the market for something and you can use a web app, do it. It is easier for you to control the updates, iterate faster to improve your idea, and have better discoverability. It is less painful for a prospective client to click on your URL than thinking on downloading and installing your application. The funnel for web applications is smaller than for desktop apps [1], and that is really important when you want to test your application.

Perhaps you are right. I do wonder, though, if there is a place for a desktop offering. Balsamiq Mockups [1] started as a desktop app, if I remember correctly. The plus to an installed app (especially if it is a single executable along the lines of Go, Rust, Swift, etc.) is the customer data can stay with the customer, performance can be quite good without the need to scale the backend, operations can be simpler, among others. (Many of the downsides are already addressed in patio11's article you referenced.)

[1] https://balsamiq.com/products/mockups/