> but there's also merit to letting the kids choose to hit pause
Why is there a "but" there? Nobody is implying that children should be strapped to a chair with their eyelids propped open with toothpicks so that they have to watch all the gory details of a horror movie.
You might want to read the TFA, it's describing a "whole other language" they call Hyperscript
on click send htmx:abort to #contacts-btn
on htmx:beforeRequest from #contacts-btn remove @disabled from me
on htmx:afterRequest from #contacts-btn add @disabled to me
If the owner cannot generate any revenue from owning the plot, then it is not a "land-like asset" and it just doesn't factor into this discussion. A "land" in LVT is not necessarily literally land, although the way most virtual worlds are programmed, the "land" in the game often has functions similar to real-world land, which makes it LVT "land".
You say "just add copy and move contructors", but that requires function overloading, which is exactly why he spent a third of the article ranting about name mangling. The point is that there is a tangled network of interdependent features that make C++ work, and you can't ""just"" take a small piece to put into C without dragging a whole bunch of other stuff along.
The author first says that CL people usually avoid dependency hell:
>When programming applications in Common Lisp people will often depend on a small(ish) number of stable libraries, and library writers often try to minimize dependencies by utilizing as much of the core language as possible.
But then try to expound on CL's extensibility using libraries:
> No one has been clamoring for a new version of the specification that adds features because Common Lisp's extensibility allows users to add new features to the language as plain old libraries
Very contradictory, and these two paragraphs are in two adjacent sections.
All valid javascript programs are valid typescript programs, so typescript necessarily must have structural type, it cannot have nominal type without breaking compatibility with javascript, which is a hard requirement.
A poem that has been consistent and frozen for 50 years, that works 99% same across all vendors?
We tolerate the SQL as it is, warts and all, because as soon as you bikeshed it it will explode into 50 different dialects. Just look at JSON for example.
Because there's no rule that says signals should ever be created at the top level assigned to a const variable. You could create signal objects dynamically based on user input, no current proposal or implementation prevents this. So there's no way to do static analysis on signal graphs.
That is not at all how science works. Outside of Mathematics, there is no such thing as Truth, only conjectures of varying certainties.
Also, research journals are really just fancy forum boards where researchers in a particular fields talk to each other, and even occasionally shit talk. They aren't ever supposed to be a source of truth, and in fact the first thing we learnt as grad student is how to critically read a research journal article and try to poke holes in the study. We are supposed to assume that the articles are wrong, until we can be convinced that they are likely to be correct.
Sometimes I think Google Scholars is a mistake. The general public aren't supposed to be exposed to research literature.
The Coriolis effect deflects the warm moist from the equator eastward, such that there is a wall of eastward wind right around the polar circles the blocks heat from reaching the poles. In a locked planet, the atmospheric current is more direct, so the heat distribution is more effective.
> in any configuration language that supports comments
Notably, not JSON. In fact JSON doesn't support comment specifically to prevent this. And YAML was created specifically to add comments to JSON, in violation of this precaution. So YAML can eat the lunch that it serve itself.