chrismonsanto

I would prefer Haskell with a Lisp syntax. Haskell's syntax adds a lot of accidental complexity to the language. My #1 complaint is how infix operators can be imported and assigned precedence/associativity. It is nearly impossible for a human to parse unfamiliar code, let alone understand it. And the sheer size and complexity of the grammar also rears its head when doing non-trivial metaprogramming.

We create these problems for ourselves when we write languages with complicated grammars. And for what? So people don't have to learn how to read Lisp code? A lot of the gain of Haskell is that the super strong type system constrains the form of programs, making it easier to reason about them. Well, constraining the syntax has similar benefits. One being that now my editor can more effectively "reason" about the surface syntax of a program. See Paredit, which enables functionality that isn't possible unless you can easily find the extent of an expression.

re 1) one of the primary limitations of the lambda calculus wrt concurrency is that it does not model time--there is no way to determine how long a computation takes. An example of a function the lambda calculus cannot define is f(x, y) where the fastest computation of x and y wins. You'll see that function pop up in a number of places in the Haskell world, where it is called "amb". This function is obviously important from a pragmatic POV but it turns out it is also important when doing formal work as well: see the parallel-or/full abstraction problem for PCF[0].

My personal favorite concurrency formalism is the Chemical Abstract Machine[1]. The y-calculus is a neat extension that preserves the spirit of the lambda calculus, but also permits (purely non-deterministic) concurrency.

[0]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_abstract#Abstraction

[1]: http://www.lix.polytechnique.fr/~fvalenci/papers/cham.pdf

> This is the whole 'eminent domain' debate in a nutshell.

Not quite--eminent domain is also used to take property from people who ARE using it. And I think that is where that debate gets very thorny, because the compensation is not always worth the costs of uprooting someone from their home.

I didn't downvote you, but I have to wonder why you didn't just edit out your self-described spiteful bits, instead of leaving them in and pointing out that they are spiteful.

Is this a serious suggestion? I can't even reliably reproduce it. It just happens randomly. The problem could be unity. It could be in compiz. It could be in the nvidia drivers, which I don't even have the source to. Who knows what in that mess causes my system to lock up.

Regardless, I do not have enough loyalty to Ubuntu to do this kind of work. There are a number of open source projects that I am involved with, and if I spend time on this (likely to be fruitless) endeavor, I end up with less time to spend on projects I care about.

My post is purely to vent, and to serve as a warning for those looking to try Ubuntu Desktop. My personal opinion is to try something else. I am.

> I've found the Ubuntu [Desktop] stability to be in constant decline over the time

I wish I never upgraded to 13.10. Sometimes drag-maximizing my window can crash my entire system. And compiz leaks memory like a sieve, sometimes I will wake up to find compiz using ~5.5gb of memory and the system will be unusable. Gotta restart!

When I first upgraded, I thought "oh, it's always like this at the start, they'll fix it." And here we are at the next version and it still hasn't been fixed.

Probably jumping ship (to another Linux distro) once my next work deadline passes.

how to fix every problem ever:

1) grow up

2) ???

3) problem solved

But seriously, people suffering from addiction or other "only in the mind" problems are told this all the time. We wish we could just "grow up" but for some reason we fail again and again.

At this point, we have a choice: do we look at our history of past failings and realize that "grow up" is not an effective (or particularly actionable) strategy, or do we continue to beat this dead horse until it magically works?

Well, so be it. I think the comments here are unnecessarily mean. YMMV. I didn't want to call anyone in particular, or I would have been more specific about what I thought was wrong with the criticism posted here. You can criticize the technical aspects and applicability of the library without being insulting.

> ... it's a useless and ugly library, most of these things can be done with vanilla javascript. ... but this thing is ugly.

Your criticism is that "most of these things can be done with vanilla JavaScript." Great. What is the point of the rest of your message? Keep in mind what you have written here is fairly tame compared to things that others have said in this topic.

When people complain about how hostile "Show HN" topics are, keep this topic and its replies in mind. Can't we be nice?

EDIT: This work was written by one developer, in what I am guessing is his free time. This would be different if it was a large project backed by a group of people/company. We might as well have selected a project at random from GitHub. I hope all of your work is up to snuff, lest someone submit it and beat it into a pulp on the front page of (probably) the most popular/influential tech aggregator in the world.

I'd like to remind everyone that some GNU labeled projects are not financially supported or commissioned by GNU. They are instead supported by individuals who, for whatever reason, identify with the GNU label and have decided to donate their work to the cause.

The comments on this post are super negative, and I think that is because people really don't like the GNU project. We don't even know if the author of this library is the person who submitted it to HN.

I would be a nervous wreck if I woke up one day to find my personal work submitted to this site, and have it trashed as thoroughly as it has been here. You don't have to like it or use it for your next project, but for the love of God, don't call it a shitty ugly abomination (to combine some of the comments here...)

> The reason for the accredited-investor regulation was to prevent people from putting all of their wealth into risky investments they know nothing about and being left destitute.

Perhaps limit the amount that can be invested without accreditation?

I have never owned a smartphone, and I will hold out as long as I can. It is not a fashion statement, I do not care what others think about me. The nature of my work requires a lot of uninterrupted thinking, and I have a very addictive personality.

If anything, it would be nice to own a smartphone so my friends and colleagues will stop acting weird about it.

So we don't get two threads on the same subject, I made a reply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7461830

> That does not seem like an unreasonable position.

I don't think their stance is unreasonable, I just think there is a more constructive alternative.

From the article:

> He has not, and said he will not, so it’s too late in my mind. Any public change of opinion at this time would only be to ensure his new powerful position at the Mozilla foundation.

I disagree with this, hence my post. I think if he puts his money where his mouth is, that good undoes his past failings. I don't think he is going to use Mozilla as a vehicle for promoting homophobia. Therefore, I see two options:

1) he leaves, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is no monetary contribution.

2) he stays, Mozilla doesn't contribute to societal homophobia, and there is a monetary contribution.

(Option #3 where he leaves and also makes a monetary contribution is extremely unlikely to happen, so I will not list it here)

I am admittedly very pragmatic about these issues. I don't care if he is shamed by being forced out of the company. I don't think that really helps.

I'm referring to the legal distinction between single and married people, and the benefits married people get.

Sorry, it was a typo.

> But the pro-gay-marriage crowd seems to go beyond that... These people don't even acknowledge the legitimacy of any other beliefs but their own and refuse to stoop to the level of debating the other side on intellectual grounds.

I reject your implication that because I am pro-gay marriage, I have refused to give other viewpoints any sort of legitimacy. I have, in the past, and have come to the decision that pro-gay marriage is the correct moral stance. You may disagree with me, but I am not ignorant or blind.

> It's to say that dismissing the legitimacy of other's beliefs besides your own shows a pretty absurd level of intellectual hubris

Why is Brendan donating $1000 to Prop 8 not "dismissing the legitimacy of other's beliefs", but a boycott is? Where do you think that money goes?

I support your decision to boycott, although I personally disagree with it.

I wish you would give Brendan the chance to repent.

First of all, and most importantly, it's unlikely they are going to shitcan him as CEO.

Second, he has not spoken about his motivations for donating to Prop 8. If he was doing so in pursuit of abolishing the marriage institution altogether, I consider that very different than doing it because he only wants straight people to marry. (Since this is a politically charged issue, I will say that while I am personally in favor of abolishing marriage altogether, I think actively working to deny gays the right to marry in the interim is an exceptionally absurd idea.)

Third, his views may have changed over the years.

If he came out saying he was wrong and donated 10x the amount he donated to Prop 8 to a LGBT charity, I would consider that a win. There are ways to make this right without shitcanning him.

I super disagree that this is a form of oppression. They're a small company who made a mobile game, and they're voicing their disapproval peacefully. Calling this 'oppression' is pretty melodramatic.

> The public transportation in SF (and the larger Bay Area) is a classist, unreliable nightmare.

I've never been to California, but used to live next to NYC. Could you expand on how the transit is 'classist' ? Is it too expensive? Does it not stop at places other than the suburbs?

This is my favorite option.

That being said, I think people are especially worried that if it's a bad change, it won't be reverted or tinkered with in a timely manner. HN has a (deserved, I think...) reputation for being unresponsive to user feedback.

The solution to this is to allow collapsing uninteresting comment threads. I use this all the time on Reddit.

> The only thing I'd like is a way to collapse comments (Reddit style) so I can easily get past a long chain in a discussion.

This is the only thing I want as well.

I think a lot of people write "Islamophobia" when they mean "hating Islam as an excuse to hate Arab people."

Speaking as an Arab person who is very critical of Islam, I think we should be careful to distinguish the two.

> You finally get reliable vertical centering of elements as a side-benefit.

Worth noting that you already get this with flexbox's align-items: center, which you can use today!

> What event could possibly make Earth less hospitable than Mars?

If we reach such a point, lack of room on Earth might be a serious issue

I will be using Python 3.4 in production soon.

In Kentucky (and probably the midwest in general), mass transit effectively does not exist.

Let's assume all of the friendly paths have been taken. What now? What are we going to do to educate these women, and what exactly are we educating them about? And at this point, should we not just give up on convincing the other party? How much abuse do women have to take before enough is enough?

Sometimes you can't fix problems from within. What exactly are women supposed to do in this case? Just shut up? How will these problems ever be fixed?

I imagine Marco is already working on interesting stuff and doesn't want to start a new business to compete with the companies he is criticizing. Just because you have identified a weakness doesn't mean you have the time or desire to exploit it.

As an Amazon customer, I just want them to be the best they can be. I don't give a shit about competing in the retail space.