Just want to note that in Haskell, whitespace syntax _is_ syntactic sugar for brackets etc. I don't recall that being the case for python. Interesting tidbit, some of the big names in the Haskell community have very idiosyncratic coding styles that use the bracket look.
The recent popular ones (edit: assuming I am reading correctly which games you refer to) are all pretty much spinoff genres that borrow heavily from traditional roguelikes, but break from the classic design attributes in very important ways. Many of them are excellent games, but I don't think it's being nitpicky to distinguish them. Note I make this objection without wanting to wade into the tedious war over terminology.
If you are a video game enthusiast, particularly of a niche genre, /vg/ can be a good place. I'm really into roguelikes, so I visit the '/rlg/' thread around once a week to see what's going on and potentially get some advice if I'm at a tricky part in a run or need to make a decision about where to take my character.
Standard disclaimer applies about 4chan. If you're thin-skinned, you may find it not worth the trouble. Just don't engage with the trolls and you'll be fine.
I was one of the people who didn't want to learn SQL/database stuff. What do you know, after a few years in the industry my interests lay heavily in serverside. I'd kick the old me if I could.
I lived in Durham from 10 to when I started college (travelling back during breaks etc), and I loved it. I agree with you on every point, the triangle is fantastic.
Just to reiterate: great food, great music, real diversity.
With dependent types you can. I'm not aware of whether that proof is possible in Haskell, however.
Besides, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying it that + in Haskell means more than an overloaded operator. It means the type has access to additional methods. This gives you more information.
> There is nothing on this Earth worth doing which requires the processing power we now possess in our pockets. If you can't do it in 64Kb, I assure you, it isn't worth doing.
BS. Applications in scientific research easily blow that ridiculous limit out of the water. Your point about single vs multi user is good, but you do yourself no favors by starting off with a bad premise. And lest you say you're talking about personal OS only, that's not what you wrote at all.
I do think obsessing about trivial things is harmful, but finding an editor you really like working with is very valuable. I was exposed to vim and had a really hard time working with it, but I saw the value that lay beneath the arcane surface. I knew how much of a pain it was for me to copy/paste/rename/switch between windows when editing; it took me out of my flow. Becoming minimally proficient (I don't use any of vim's really advanced features) was a huge boost in comfort, translating to increased productivity for my attention-deficit brain. This feeling was compounded even more when I started using a tiling window manager: now my hands never needed to leave my keyboard during a programming session unless I was looking something up (I played around with vimperator or the like for a while, never 100% clicked for me).
Of course, that's the ideal. I can't use my preferred setup when I'm working on our legacy Windows codebase. I also won't pretend that I'm immune to chasing the new shiny thing to distract me from doing real work, it happens with some frequency. I just think that editors (and perhaps a good tiling window manager) are the exception(s) to the rule.
The guy has serious issues, I was shocked at how toxic he gets at the drop of a hat. I was browsing a discussion on the Haskell subreddit and he was incredibly nasty, literally zero good faith given or assumed of others. Technical opinions aside, I would never want him involved with a project I'm participating in. He fails the only rule I care about: don't be an asshole.
Agree 100%. If you don't have explicit state transitions in a UI, you're asking for trouble. I think some people don't realize how much harder they make it on themselves by not setting clear boundaries; they see the up front cost and balk, when it saves a non-trivial amount of headache in the future, not to mention reducing mental overhead when you've got the structure hashed out.
I take issue with some of Rich Hickey's technical opinions, but Datomic seems pretty cool. I knew Datalog has been around for a while, but had never looked into it further.
For me, it was the first level when time move backwards as you went left. I literally couldn't stop smiling, I was so excited at the cleverness of the mechanic and the possibilities resulting from it; the music going along with it was such a cool detail.
Maybe it's just me, but 'negative' politeness has always been my default conversation mode. I didn't even know what it was until a few months ago, or that people studied 'politeness strategies'. Being deferential with words leaves open the opportunity for dialogue, and doesn't bite you in the ass if you're mistaken. Of course, it can be appropriate to be more direct in certain circumstances, and tone can change the perception of modal statements from sincere to patronizing very easily. Still, to me, it seems like people are more willing to seriously consider direct statements when it's not your usual attitude. "This person is very careful about making definite statements, and they seem very confident about what they just said". When what you want isn't to manipulate people but to have them open their mind to the possibility that what you're saying is true, that train of thought (and I know this exists because I've thought so myself several times) is very valuable.
An example for your specialist skillset theory: Simon Marlow being hired by Facebook. Guarantee he's raking in the dough. Why? He solves hard problems.