344 karma · joined October 17, 2013
See: https://effectivetypescript.com/2023/09/27/closure-compiler/
For the most part, I would guess people still use the Closure Compiler because of its aggressive minification or for legacy reasons. I think both are probably true for ClojureScript, as well as the fact that the Compiler is Java-based so it has a Java API that (I am guessing here) made it easier to bootstrap on top of the JVM Clojure tooling / prior art.
Shadow CLJS has made working with external libraries quite easy and IIRC it lets you set the compilation options for your libraries declaratively.
Why do you except Google and Anthropic?
I believe the misspellings in the spelling section are intentional so that the student will identify them—I am guessing that’s the point.
The statute (APA) requires courts to form an independent judgment about the gaps.
The Chevron doctrine required courts in certain cases to set this judgment aside in favor of an agency’s judgment—-basically on the basis that the agencies are closer to the problems and know better.
This setting aside may be the better outcome, however it is not explicitly specified in the statute (APA).
Ultimately, if Congress wants this to be the case, they /can/ amend the statute (APA), effectively enshrining the Chevron doctrine.
At the end of the day, the court’s decision here rests on statutory interpretation (not constitutional doctrine) so Congress could change the outcome by amending the statute (APA) to explicitly codify Chevron. This would be achieved with its ordinary legislative power (Article 1 Section 7 of the Constitution).
The court’s decision does effectively put the ball back in Congress’ court.
From the article:
> From Datomic’s point of view, the grant workload’s invariant violation is a matter of user error. Transaction functions do not execute atomically in sequence. Checking that a precondition holds in a transaction function is unsafe when some other operation in the transaction could invalidate that precondition!
Is point 2 a virtual-thread only risk, or would we incur it with regular threads too?
Why not pool virtual threads, though? I get that they’re not scarce, but if you’re looking to limit throughput anyway wouldn’t that be easier to achieve using a thread pool than semaphores?
[1] https://os.unil.cloud.switch.ch/tind-customer-epfl/30e62590-...
I found the rest of the book (and the two volumes that follow it in the series) to be very entertaining!
Personally I love college towns and wish there were an effort for them to continue to thrive despite the (probable?) demise of small colleges.
https://stackoverflow.blog/2022/02/21/why-flutter-is-the-mos...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(1) does not assume good faith. (2) is not the strongest possible interpretation of what Hewitt said. Listing them here is flamebait and reflects poorly on the community. Shame.
Edit: Added guidelines link.
You've responded to the ad hominem attacks with class. I hope you do not take them as a reflection of the HN community at large; please keep coming back and posting (provocatively) as you have done, because it induces learning.
Is this list representative of the entire scope of the sprint? Unclear from the article. If so, while the sprint was arguably successful in that the engineers felt good about it, it didn't really succeed in improving the customer experience directly.