fogus

"Famous" is a huge stretch. Say my name to 1,000,000 Java programmers and you're likely to get 100% "huh?"

I posted it. Someone passed it to HN. People hit an arrow pointing upward. That's how anything gets to the top of Hacker News.

> exercise their own judgment

Right. As long as they use that judgement to avoid reading classified information. ;-)

> Army is taking proactive steps

As far as I understand (and please note that I'm not an expert) they have always blocked certain kinds of sites. That Guardian is added is not really surprising, but the indirect refusal to own up to it is whacky.

> I do disagree with the conclusions you draw

Can you tell me which conclusions I've drawn? I'm just stating fact here. Accessing secret information via public channels is still breaking the law. Is it right? That's a very difficult question to answer since the people whom this affects (people without need-to-know) have entered into that world willingly and presumably know what they've signed up for.

> The common soldier does not possess a > security clearance.

I'm not sure I follow this. Laws against reading privileged information apply to everyone no? Again, I'm not saying that's right or wrong, only that's the condition that we live in.

> This makes reading certain public domain > a criminal act.

No one has been charged with anything. The have Internet filters set up to block that site from certain government machines. I'm not sure that this extends to being prosecuted for reading the Guardian recipes section at home.

> want to strip them of something

They are not stripped of anything. They were never allowed to read classified information that they were not given explicit access to. That the entire Guardian site is blocked is more likely a matter of laziness than evil.

> you volunteered and signed your life away

That's a bit dramatic and I never said that. My only point is that they signed up knowing that they are barred from accessing information not meant for them.

> I charge this is unlawful

My point is that I don't think that it is. It sucks for sure.

> what would you suggest is done by the soldier?

I've never been a soldier, so I don't know what their channels of recourse happen to be.

    This is making the access of certain 
    unclassified, public systems unlawful 
    according to UCMJ.

I think that's indisputable. If the public system has classified material on it, then it is unlawful for someone without the proper clearances to read it.

    We are in a position to reject this notion 
    and speak out against it. The soldiers are 
    not.

Last I checked becoming a soldier was currently a voluntary act.

That's not true. If you only have a secret clearance then you're not supposed to read top secret material anywhere (unless you're "need to know") - home nor at work nor on the moon.

You have to understand that it being released does not change its status. People with security clearances are supposed to do the "right thing" by the terms of their clearance and not read material that they're not cleared to read, regardless if it's leaked or not.

I think you're forgetting that when you enter the military you're submitting yourself to being told what to do. That's part of the contract.

Lemonad was once much larger with a wider range of functional operators. Recently most of its functions have been moved into underscore-contrib (https://github.com/documentcloud/underscore-contrib). Most of my JS time lately has been spent with _.contrib, but I plan to come back to Lemonad soon and write up full docs and the like.

I can't speak a speck of German. The words look so long and intimidating and I find that if I try to pronounce them I get lost from the beginning to the end. The worst part is that sometimes German words look like something in English and when I try to use them in sentences my German speaking friends giggle at me. German definitely seems less intuitive as a spoken human language.

> It makes them feel special and better than others.

That's an incredibly cynical view. I'm sorry that Clojure was not for you -- it happens. People have different ways of thinking and the language that makes sense to you might not make sense to me. This is natural I would say and not likely reflective of general intelligence. There's no need to be bitter about it.

> I keep hearing this over and over.

Hearing what? That pmap is a drop-in for map giving instant speed gains? That's odd. I've never heard that. Like anything pmap has its tradeoffs.

> poster child for lisp's success

You're conflating "functional programming" with Lisp.

> I think the whole multiple core thing is over blown

That's something that I would probably agree with. However, people tend to focus on that regarding Clojure because it provides more than one model for describing concurrent state changes. People get excited about that I suppose.

I'm confused. Is it magical because you don't understand it, or do you not understand it because it's magical? It seems like you're saying the first one.

And? Actually one definition, 'recursion' reloads the page and the other 'laziness' has no definition... yet.

I am writing a book on ClojureScript. http://joyofclojure.com/2nd

In reduce the accumulator starts as the seed and is changed in the forEach for each elem. Since there are so elems (funs) the accumulator never changes and returns as the value of seed (5).

I would probably structure the problem like this:

    var ans = someCalculation(x,y);
    
    if (truthy(ans) && !isNaN(ans))
      //do something
    else
      //do something else

The point being I like to dispatch conditions on boolean results of certain properties of my results rather than the result directly. It helps me to keep my sanity.

Thanks for the kind words BTW. :-)

Someone has already addressed the maybeGT case, but you were right about the double problem. I had originally made it a squaring function, but for some dumb reason decided to make it a doubler instead just before submitting. There is a lesson in there about last moment changes. ;-)

Exactly right. We like to be able to do something like:

    var gtThreshold = gt(100);

And then:

    filter(gtThreshold, array);

This is nicely fluent I would say.

Technically the are JS falsey, but I choose not to treat them that way. I rarely want to treat the result of a calculation as a boolean condition. However, I often want to know if a calculation isNaN or isEmpty. Just because something is falsey doesn't mean it should be treated that way universally.

Can you clarify?

    their product to explode in popularity, 
    and they fear Lisp would actually hinder that.

I've written systems in Lisp and as far as my clients know it might as well have been written in JSON. They don't care.

> But who cares about titles, really? Why do they matter?

I'm pretty sure that was the point. The term physicist doesn't make a physicist a physicist.

> some of the research in the universities

Some of that for sure could and should be called science. However, most of the research being done is not actually pure research either but rather problem solving. (and sometimes not even solving per se)

Not that particular software no, but I'm used my share of dreck. Maybe I guessed where the problem was and used experimentation to validate, but I would hardly call that the scientific method.

When I read the quote from the Pedestal site, it echoes to me similar quotes:

    “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”

or

    “Any darn fool can make something complex; 
    it takes a genius to make something simple.” 

or

    “Every solution to every problem is simple. 
    It's the distance between the two where the 
    mystery lies.” 

or

    “Simplicity is about subtracting the obvious 
    and adding the meaningful.”

or

    “Simplicity is ultimately a matter of focus.” 

or maybe even

    “I would have written a shorter letter, but I 
    did not have the time.”

When I read the title of this thread I see none of these.

note: the title is now fixed, but I'll keep these quotes here

What's with the back-handed thread title? Lame.

Sorry for the late response. I will not cover ES6 tail calls very much at all except to mention the possibility for inclusion.

I talk about that too. :-)

I also really miss pattern matching and I think that JavaScript would be well-served by it or even minimally some sort of destructuring.