mischov

“Do you put Mensa on your resume?” is clearly a personal attack in this context. At least own up to your words.

The author also has a Nim version, https://github.com/paranim/pararules

Can you expand on what you mean by "it's 'opinionated' macro based module generation is a hindrance to building a more typical api based http service"?

It was pretty interesting to see Floki get a lot faster and Meeseeks actually get a little slower with OTP 21. I'll enjoy figuring out why. I hope to get a chance to work on the OTP 21 performance of Meeseeks before too long.

On the plus side there were some nice memory improvements for Meeseeks in OTP 21.

Meeseeks's speed difference with Floki is not that significant, and my initial findings are they've leveled out even more with OTP 21, sometimes even swinging in favor of Floki.

The better handling of malformed HTML by default is the much bigger deal.

1.1.1.1 was working for me on AT&T after Cloudflare released 1.1.1.1, then shortly after that it ceased working.

Maybe the firmware update has a bug, but it's very suspiciously timed. Notice that the OP is dated April 2, while 1.1.1.1 was released April 1.

I think it's part of the "and beyond" in that picture, and not coming in OTP 21.

This video also supports that guess: https://youtu.be/hHhm0bfdj-4?t=10m14s

The source of the original article is New York Magazine, not the NYT.

Elixir should absolutely be an abrupt change from the procedural paradigm, and much closer conceptually to Clojure than Ruby.

In Clojure you can still stick something in an atom or volatile and easily update it in place... doing that is a lot more involved in Elixir.

"Picking" a political side will alienate at least 50% of the users (if not more as the left typically is < 50%)

Source?

I can't tell if this is a serious comment or not, but there is no reason why you can't use Mongo with Phoenix.

For example- https://tomjoro.github.io/2017-02-09-ecto3-mongodb-phoenix/

(If you're asking about what flavor of Javascript I use) I just use plain JS for the bits of JS I need, but nothing I have been working on needs a heavy front-end.

There's not really an Elixir equivalent of Clojurescript to Clojure (there is an Elixirscript, but it's a work in progress and I'm curious whether it can ever capture the nice experience of using the Erlang VM). I've seen interest in the Elixir community in Elm and Bucklescript(OCaml) and other compiled-to-js languages, but I think a lot of people just use JS.

I came to Elixir from Clojure and was not a big fan of Elixir's syntax, but I've found that after a while it mostly fades into the background (much in the same way that Clojure's parens do).

The language and Erlang's virtual machine are generally a joy to work with, and I have no regrets pushing past the syntax.

Perhaps the reason your answer is not allowed to be "captcha" is that there are numerous services that provide manual captcha answers for bots.

For the sake of accuracy there was also some stuff in there about a conflict between first-class functions and the type system, and some stuff about errors being easy-to-ignore return values.

I've only recently started using ClojureScript with any intensity, but at the moment I agree with the author that the experience has been neither fun nor productive.

I don't necessarily feel that this is a problem with the language (though the current macro system doesn't seem simple or easy) but rather that this is a problem with the youth of the language.

The Closure compiler seems like a wonderful thing, but you really want to be able to use advanced compilation and that makes interop with other libraries... confusing (at least while you're getting started). This makes it a lot harder to just jump in and get started by calling on host (Javascript) libraries to get stuff done. Combine this with the fact that there aren't so many pure ClojureScript libraries and wrapper-libraries available (relatively speaking), and productivity is a bit stunted.

All of that said, I think ClojureScript has as much potential as Clojure on the JVM and I look forward to things improving as the ecosystem matures. It is wonderful to write Clojure and control the client, and I think that those people who can fight their way through (what I found to be) the unfortunately steep getting-started curve will have a hard time going back to vanilla JS.

Capable.

Simulation of eye-movement on laptop:

focus Oh look, a big picture on the right.

down I wonder what that picture is about.

left and up Hey! Another picture!

down Part of another picture!

left and up What are these little things on the left? Meh, too small to my eye which have just scanned big pictures and headlines. Ignore.

weird left to right diagonal thing between 2nd and 3rd column as I scroll down

It's not so bad when my browser is small enough to keep it at one column, but I find two or more columns disjointed, distracting, and hard to read.

I'm all for responsive but readable is good too.

Obviously we would not rather pay. The internet is the bastion of free (beer) information/stuff-that-can-be-transferred-electronically, and I think a great percentage of users prefer said free-ness.

All the same, I am more and more convinced that subscription funded, high-quality digital content production is the correct path for the future.

So something like Clojure, but that runs on the CLR and Javascript as well?

CLR - https://github.com/richhickey/clojure-clr JS - https://github.com/clojure/clojurescript Python - https://github.com/halgari/clojure-py Lua - https://github.com/raph-amiard/clojurescript-lua C - https://github.com/schani/clojurec

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

He never said, "the people most receptive to ads"- he said, "the perfect demographic for expensive stuff".

He is suggesting that people who have they money and desire to pay for something that makes their lives a bit more pleasant are the kind of people advertisers wish to get their ads in front of the most.

Not all advertising is about clicks- tv advertisement was built around getting information in front of eyeballs.

"But it wasn’t until I noticed that Oxford comma that it all suddenly became very clear. That’s not right. That couldn’t be the Wall Street Journal." (From OP)

Does anybody know why an Oxford comma would be a signal that the quote isn't from the WSJ?

I've always found that using an oxford comma ("red, black, and blue" instead of "red, black and blue") is just common sense.

Separation by comma is a concrete indication that the items on the list are separated, which is useful in situations where the last two items could mean something different if not separated ("black and blue" has it's own special connotations, whereas "black, and blue" doesn't).

It takes a VERY long time to load.

Actually, the primary theme of the article seems pretty solid to me.

"Nobody wants to read your shit" (unless you give them an good reason to do so).

That's not assuming people are sheep. That's assuming that people are self-interested. And much of the time they are.

So even if you ignore everything else the author wrote (which you seemed to, since you're arguing that HN articles are popular because they're interesting, and the author's answer number two included making the writing interesting...), there is a valuable lesson present.

If you want people to read your writing, write something that will appeal to somebody (say... your audience). It isn't even difficult to give somebody a good reason to read what you wrote: if they find it interesting, that's a reason; if they find it entertaining, that's a reason; if they get to escape their lousy life for 25 minutes, that's a reason. This is hardly revolutionary advice, but it is a good reminder.

Anything worth writing is worth writing well.

But not everything is worth writing.

I would not even begin to disagree with you about the merits of beautiful prose, but would the article have been anything more than a collection of entertaining images and vitriol if the author hadn't been skewering a very real and obvious and silly trend?

Most of us have probably shaken our heads at some startup name or another, or rolled our eyes at a particularly unbearable lump of marketing-speak. So underneath all those pretty words and images lies a sentiment we understand and can sympathize with.

If you want your blog READ instead of skimmed for buzzwords and facts, write things worth writing.

In case you're curious, the text you are reading now is #000.

Which is not to say that #222 wouldn't be easier on the eyes.

I don't see why using a fictional character to make this point is harmful. A much wider range of people know who Indiana Jones is than who (take your pick of experts consulted with by a government) is.

Because he chose a more widely known (albeit fictional) example, more people are able to better grasp the idea he is presenting. It's just good communication.

I can see 18 headlines when I arrive at Hacker News. I can see 6 headlines when I arrive at Hacker News Two.

The headlines are obvious when I arrive at Hacker News. There is a lot of noise between me and the headlines when I arrive at Hacker News Two.

I am going to stick with the original.

> It was once a well-kept garden of intelligent discussion .... But into this garden comes a fool [quoted from the original article]

Assuming this isn't a community of those who come out of the womb enlightened, aren't most of us living in some state of foolishness?

I suppose it might be possible to sustain a community by continuously attracting new enlightened individuals, but wouldn't it be more practical to do what most societies do and teach (at least some of) the fools until they aren't fools any longer?