This is a federal search warrant pertaining to an ongoing investigation, not a facility that Trump organized to hunt nonbelievers, as much as you want that to be true so that your narrative can play itself out.
Now that dart has sound types, why not continue this work? I'd love to write dart and try it out, but I don't really care about phone apps or web apps. I know the dart vm exists but it seems like Google has so much control over that, and it makes me uncomfortable and unwilling to invest time in it. If an LLVM branch existed, I could be more certain that corporate won't obsolete my project out of the blue some day, as Google has become known to do, many times.
I really like that HN is so low bandwidth. I often check the fp on shitty mobile connection and while I can't read most stories until my rss reader catches up, at least I know what people are talking about.
I enjoy this as well. Plus the raw site is faster than any app reader I've tried before and while I have somewhat fat fingers I typically don't have too much of a problem clicking links on the mobile site.
There's a valid concern that Medium would be sending money to those with "alt" viewpoints, or that Medium ends up having to censor those same "alt" viewpoints (de-platforming) to avoid that.
People with good content that you don't agree with don't deserve the same opportunity to be paid for their content? I've never used medium but it's starting to sound like I better not bother.
So you want an institutionalized echo chamber rather than just an organic one? Are you really so afraid of these people that you believe they have to be silenced?
I can understand certain behaviors not being allowed but viewpoints?
The number of actual nazis around is so incredibly small that it's not just statistically insignificant, but had that car related incident not happened recently it would go almost totally unmentioned.
The number of people such as yourself who want to censor speech and police thought, however, is frighteningly high. You are the same as those who advocated for book bannings and burnings at other points in history and it is depressing that your point of view has the strength it currently does once again.
Maybe not Nazis, but violent bigots are quite abundant. 19 trans women have been murdered just this year, and that's just what gets reported. I hear personal accounts from LGBTQ friends daily about threats and actual violence. Then there's all the other stuff people like me deal with: losing housing, jobs, family because we finally got up the courage to live as who we are rather than what powerful sections of society expect us to be.
I'm a lot more afraid of someone who's decided it's time to "show them queers who's boss" with me as the target than someone who wants to keep that same person off Medium. There are ample publishing opportunities for bigots. Unlike refusing to serve someone at the only grocery store in town, one of a million publishing outlets refusing to take an article has minimal effect.
>Maybe not Nazis, but violent bigots are quite abundant. 19 trans women have been murdered just this year, and that's just what gets reported. I hear personal accounts from LGBTQ friends daily about threats and actual violence
19 people out of a group of 0.3% of the population (self-reported) being murdered is far below the average intentional homicide rate of the general population.
By far I mean it's working out at about 0.2/100,000 compared to the 4.8/100,000 as experienced overall.
Can we not discuss this without leaning on appeals to emotion and hearsay?
>> Can we not discuss this without leaning on appeals to emotion...
No. I'm not a robot. The value and limits of free speech are all about feelings, especially whose feelings matter more and in what contexts. Without feelings, rights wouldn't matter because no one would care how people treat each other.
Scheme was my first love, before we even knew what r6rs would look like.
I feel like r7rs-small rights the wrongs that r6 dumped on us. Scheme has always been a very fragmented community especially in the technical sense, there's a lot of scheme features that don't carry over to another implementation. However, I think most scheme subcommunities appreciate the spiritual benefits of immutable data structures, hygiene in macros, lambda calc, continuations once you grok them, streams, etc.
Clojure has filled the hole for a while but I suspect a scheme implementation with as sophisticated a packaging and build system as clojure/lein could be in the works somewhere ;)
I wonder, would it be better to have something like an LLVM frontend for Clojure, rather than another new Scheme? Or, would we still have a long startup time, regardless of the platform? I know Clojure's startup time isn't to be blamed on the JVM, but since Clojurescript does not suffer from that issue, I'm not really sure where the problem is.
I would love clojure as a native platform but I have very little hope that it will happen.
Clojure a greatest strength was being able to use all the mature Java libraries. The jvm is an incredibly sophisticated platform, regardless of how shitty Java is. Clojure script benefits from the same concept by being able to run on node, use npm libraries, run on lighter devices in a quicker start-up than regular clojure, etc.
Common lisp and clojure have quite a few differences, though common lisp is certainly on clojures tail with regards to adoptability in enterprise. Scheme is a simpler, truer to principle language than CL.
Presumably, a native Clojure would be able to tap into the C/C++ ecosystem through similar FFI mechanisms. Granted, that code would be no more portable than the intersection of the platforms supported by each library, but that's already the situation with classic native code.
Yes, but that's a fundamental difference, don't you think? Java interop works on almost every device, same with js. I'm the context of just portability, tapping into Java code is more useful than tapping into c++ code.
I get where you're coming from, but there's a long list of reasons why it hasn't ever been done very well, not the least of which being that it just wouldn't be as useful as people think. There's a million languages that can talk to c/c++. Guile can do it, ruby can do it, Julia can do it, there's already some lisp cousins/friends that have that ability.
I'm not super familiar with clasp, but I'd bet anything that its missing some major features compared to sbcl.
Clojure's macros can be made hygienic using `gensym`. Is this not enough? Is it desirable to Schemers for it to be impossible to generate user-accessible symbols within a macro?
What if symbols in macros were hygienic by default, but we had a `pubsym` escape hatch, allowing us to specify the exact symbol name. Would that allay safety concerns, or does that make something else difficult/impossible?
Hygiene is a nicety that indeed can be emulated by unhygienic macros.
First class continuations however are less easy, and just as big a part of scheme. Callcc is a cult, nearly, and for good reason. With it, almost all local control patterns can be easily implemented so you can have things like fibers, coroutines, etc basically for free. It gets harder when you want asynchrony and parallelism, Andy Wingo has a great blog about guile internals and delimited continuation implementation, CML stuff, etc. If you're interested in higher-level scheme implementation, that's a good starting point.
Clojure has advanced control flow mechanisms and more sophisticated parallelism features than most scheme implementations, but this relies a lot on the underlying host platform. Callcc is made possible at the fundamental level of how scheme works. Pmaps in clojure work because the jvm is incredible and js engines are getting there too. LLVM is not the magic bullet for excellent language design, sometimes.
Racket is a scheme in one sense but not spiritually. It's a unified learning environment. The editor works hand in hand with the language engine, which you can mold however you like, there's a sophisticated package system, etc. It's practically an insult to describe racket as "a scheme implementation". It's not wrong, but it's a massive understatement.
I'd think that would have more to do with painting the screen then actually processing the keystroke. A few ms difference wouldn't be noticeably slower unless you were watching for it specifically.
What other measure of keystroke latency matters for typing than time from keystroke to display? I certainly am not impressed just because my keystrokes got placed in some invisible software buffer really quickly.
I guess my contention is that we all should realize a giant program like word is going to exhibit areas of latency that simpler programs can be more efficient in.
Idk, I don't expect word to pain as quickly as vim because why would it? It's huge.
Word is what I use for editing rich text, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that doing the same in vim or emacs is much more of a chore and less intuitive.
Idk, seems like comparing a wrench to a hammer from my perspective, that's all.
> I guess my contention is that we all should realize a giant program like word is going to exhibit areas of latency that simpler programs can be more efficient in.
But that's just lazy design. The immediate effect of typing a character (i.e., showing up on screen) hasn't changed in decades. Yes Word may do other stuff, but none of that other stuff is in the critical path for typing latency.
Think of a database like Oracle. Oracle does lots of stuff, but its critical latency path (committing simple transactions to the log) is as fast or faster than "simpler" ACID databases.
I don't experience any lag with current word except for very large files. It's slightly less responsive than typing in vim, but most operations feel instant.
Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN. We ban accounts that post like this. Your other comments with this account so far are good, so we won't ban you for this one. But would you please take care not to post uncivil, unsubstantive, and/or flamebait comments?
This is a federal search warrant pertaining to an ongoing investigation, not a facility that Trump organized to hunt nonbelievers, as much as you want that to be true so that your narrative can play itself out.