gngeal

Now what could the "RT" part possibly mean?

The language perhaps doesn't, but most actual programs do. I'm definitely not going to write my own standard library just because I can.

Bah! Interested, definitely yes, but I share Alan Kay's point of view that "I like type systems but I don't know any that doesn't suck", so in this particular area, I'm a bit of a Luddite. (I'm much more of a lisper in heart.)

So do I. We've had CSP, Occam, Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo; now we have Erlang and Go. I'm just puzzled by the walled garden phenomenon present in such communities as that of the .NET programmers. The very fact that you're comparing C# to Node.js (!), of all things, just confirms it. It isn't very difficult to beat Node.js in terms of the language quality. Hardly seems like a fair fight to me.

Real generics, as in generic programming? As in, this: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Research_papers/Generics ? The last time I saw C# (2.0?), it only had simple parametric polymorphism.

What's with the C# developers ans async/await? Almost every time I read their exhortations it feels like they're blissfully unaware that other languages have already had their own mechanisms for doing concurrency.

(Jokes aside, I've been in love with this idea since my high school studies of nuclear engineering. I know a lot of these things didn't pan out eventually, but I still find that sad.)

Is it actually a nautical vessel, or just a floating anchored data center? If the latter, it may still be a vessel technically but there won't be much "nautical" about it.

Uh, what Linux? No, pg worked on Lisp Machines before, and that's why Windows were hurting him so much.

I expected something along the lines of Erlang: The Movie. (I'm also surprised that there are still people who don't know about Self.)

Write your own; that's the only way of staying sane. (It's especially atrocious with vertical market applications, of course. Not only does the SW I used to use in the past suck more and more, but it doesn't even keep adding the features I really need.)

E-mail clients need to be reinvented. There's no real reason for e-mail operation to be cumbersome. I mean, we have such a wonderful, decentralized, asynchronous messaging protocol based on pure text; why do most (if not virtually all) client applications suck so badly?

No, I'm just an introvert. I have a few people to who I feel deeply connected to, and our exchanges are rare yet substantial. But these don't require IM or anything like that. I don't know anything about "shooting myself in the foot". I just don't have the impulses that some other people do (frankly, for me as a schizoid, people are very puzzling entities).

Also, "effectively communicate" is such wonderfully non-specific expression that I don't know what that even means.

The people who'd do this are exactly those people I don't feel any need to communicate with. Is it work-related? E-mail and sometimes phone are given. Is it not work-related, but urgent? I still have a phone. Is that costly? Perhaps, but if you have six urgent things to communicate every day, perhaps you have a much worse problem than having to pay a lot of money. Is it anything else? Well, what could it be? I have no idea.

Frankly, this whole "you have to live a hectic social life, everyone's doing it!" movement puzzles me.

You mean like a mosque or a church? ducks

Obviously, as this is in the purview of the Lexicology Squad, not the Grammar Squad.

"Hacker News did bring something about as a result."

Except that Hacker News did not bring about the existence of the linked site, which would be the actual meaning of "effected the site".