oneandoneis2

A) Complete is when the compiler(s) actually implement all of the spec, for starters.

B) Nice examples. Well done. But it's not about whether you can do the simple things. It's more about the impression of the community and where its interest and focus lies.

I'd rather use a language where the mundane day-to-day stuff is the most important consideration. My impression of Perl6, however unfair that may be, is that the day-to-day functionality is the boring necessary evil that must be in there somewhere, but the true focus is the amazing stuff you can do with a language that's simultaneously trying to be a better Perl, and a better Lisp, and a better Erlang, and a better Haskell.

In my mind, Perl6 is a huge lumbering beast that tries to do absolutely everything. I'm sure if I ever feel the need to write a lazy asynchronous parser script, it'll be the first language that leaps to mind. In the meantime, I don't have the time nor the interest to bother.

My perspective as a Perl5 dev: Perl6 just doesn't interest me.

The two main reasons: (a) It's still not finished, but mostly (b) all I ever see is people in love with how clever they can be with the language.

I don't need to see hyper-clever ways of using built-in lazy memoised lists to generate a Fibonacci sequence in a dozen keystrokes. If I get tempted over to Perl6 (or any other language) it'll be be by examples of how easy it makes the boring, mundane tasks that I actually need a langauge for - things like reading from/writing to files; handling dates/times nicely; etc. etc.

What I like about Perl5 is its "Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible" mantra. The only mantra I hear from Perl6 is "Look how cleverly you can solve this contrived example". That's not something I care about in the slightest when I think about what language to write my next program in.

Hedgehogs aren't nearly as common road-kill casualties as people tend to think - it's just that their prickles break down really slowly, so we see more of their remains on the road than other animals. Not because so many of them die, just because the evidence hangs around longer.

I think it could be better worded as "Please stop being so bloody stupid"

..but it's git. Github don't host your repo - they host a copy of it. You still have all your work in your local checkout. What are you concerned about?

Perl staying ahead of the curve as usual ;)

So, zodiac signs have some meaning after all? :D

Not a fair comparison - the store can and will track my habits just as easily via the card I pay with. If I forsake the loyalty card, I don't get my privacy back - I just get tracked via another method unless I go out of my way to always carry enough cash to pay anonymously.

All the loyalty card does is allow them to track the occasional time I DO pay with cash, which is insignificant enough to be worth the discount. If a store made a genuine, binding offer to only track people with loyalty cards, THEN your question would be a valid comparison. At the moment, it just isn't.

Yep, I found it absolutely fascinating!

Err.. wtf? THis is a direct rip of part of Giulia Ender's "Gut" book.

"amateur hour".. you have no idea who 'the OP' is, do you? :)

Anyone interested in the topic should check out the Gingery series on building your own workshop from scrap, which is all based on aluminium casting

He also made them a cookie, but he eated it

Wait for neovim?

It does. But the propulsion is really, really tiny.

I usually cover all bases by claiming I'm emigrating and leaving the country - only way to be sure :)

A few thoughts:

It's really distracting that typing in the REPL changes the size of the containing div.

The blurry photo of (I assume) the audience of a lecture just doesn't work - what's it supposed to do?

There's very little useful information - everything is at least one click away. If the whole purpose of the site is to 'sell' to a new audience then I guess that's not an issue, but I expect to be able to go to the site of a language & get very quickly and easily to useful manual/wiki pages explaining whatever feature I'm having trouble with.

The basic style is very 'modern' but it looks more like a Kickstarter page that's there to sell you something trendy and new than the front page of a site giving you information about a language. It's very pretty but (to me) sends completely the wrong message about what this site is.

Weeks? You mean years! :)

I actually find the "no end in sight" aspect of BW work to be really helpful: I don't have to worry about what happens when I "run out" of exercises, there will always be another progression: Pullups are getting too easy? Try one-arm pullups. Pushups getting too easy? Work on handstand pushups.

etc. etc.

The important thing is to ensure that you feel like you're making progress on each workout: Adding reps, moving to a harder version, or just improving form. Stagnating is an absolute killer.

Lost my interest at "A New Workout Every Day" - that's the antithesis of useful training:

"Exercise is physical activity for its own sake...Training is physical activity done with a longer-term goal in mind...random exposure to a variety of different movements at different intensities...is Exercise, not Training, since it is random, and Training requires that we plan what we are going to do to get ready for a specific task." - Mark Ripptoe

It also removes the ability to accurately track progression, which is something that tends to matter to the geek with a fitness app. AKA your target market.

Anyone else remember Microsoft cheerfully getting a US judge to overrule a German court decision? Only to now insist that a US court can't compel them to hand over an Irish server. Their views on jurisdiction matters seem to be remarkably flexible...

No, you can't. You can create a new history, you can't edit an existing one.

To clarify: You can, e.g., use interactive rebase to remove a commit from a branch. But that creates a new HEAD with a different SHA - this is why rebasing published branches is such a bad thing.

The parent was implying you could change history without anyone noticing. This implies modifying a previous commit whilst keeping the current HEAD the same, which can't be done.

You can't rewrite history in git, that's what the shas are there for. An attacker who gains access to a repo can add new commits, but not tamper with the existing ones.

You realize every country that uses metric today used a different system before?

The US is not a special snowflake: The entire rest of the world managed to switch just fine.

I mostly like it, with one glaring exception: The auditorium photo. The instant I got to that, it stopped looking like a language homepage and started to feel like a site that was trying to sell me something.

Not one of the other language pages features a photo. I think might be a reason for that. I'm sure it's wonderful from a design perspective, but it's so far from what I expect from a technical page, I'd give up on the site on the spot if I were looking at it "for real".

Sorry, but it really is that bad.

IME the main thing that makes git so hard to understand is the determination to think of it as "distributed subversion" - I find it substantially easier to teach git to people who've never used a VCS before than to people who have years of experience with SVN/CVS/etc.

It can seem a complicated nightmare until you grok how it really works. And if you have preconceptions getting in your way, yes, a book can be a very useful tool to give you that "Aha!" moment.

Once you stop someone thinking "It's a log of patches" and make them understand "It's like VM snapshots logged in a linked list" all the weird difficult stuff just Makes Sense.

"Linus says things" would have been enough :)

I've asked this a time or two, and the answers I've received so far have always boiled down to:

"I don't know how to use git"

or

"I don't know how to alias complex commands I use frequently"

Maybe you'll have better luck with the responses you get :)

The fact that they thought their research would get a negative reception clearly shows they're not cynical enough: They were providing a cast-iron case for everyone in the field to say "We need more funding to do new research" :)

I haven't had problems yet - what were your issues?

America in a nutshell: bunch of smart guys make an amazing system that changes the world; bunch of politicians cheerfully destroy it in return for a quick profit.

If Snowden's revelations weren't enough to ensure the rest of the world got busy on routing traffic around America, legislation like this will.

This move isn't just going to screw American consumers & startups. It's going to remove America from its status as the hub of the Internet.

And all thanks to a few profit-obsessed monopolists.

Yay capitalism.