The eclipse will destroy everything we hold dear! It started with the poorest failover system known to man!
GGit hub deserves every piece of criticism they get. How they can receive so much funding and help and still manage to go down so many times every year absolutely baffles me.
Of all the services I pay for, gitlab might be the best one in terms of bang for buck.
Not OP, but I'm chiming in. The crux of his original argument was that inventing more languages begets more semantics to keep track of, more syntax to know, overall more conplexity. A scheme codebase of sufficient maturity could express orders of magnitude line-by-line compared to the equivalent c code. Nim has macros, no? Either way, scheme is decades more mature, and lots of PL efforts have already been ventured into the ()-verse.
I'd be curious to hear what nim would have over scheme, if anything like that came to mind.
Yeah but humans can more easily make macro-decisions based on micro situations. It's easier for us to look at a map and figure out which side is winning, sometimes that's really hard for a computer to do.
I'm not a Dota2 player, but like SC2 for example is a game with LOTS of room for AI improvements. I've always thought that having some sort of APM limit might actually encourage AI authors to adopt new and unique approaches to macro-strats, but it doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
When it comes to do a small thing rapidly, I think bots are almost always going to win.
When it comes to do something large-scale with finesse, I think humans are going to have an advantage for a LONG time.
I think that part of what makes human agents so effective at certain tasks, especially in the context of being up against another human is that we can evaluate an event and better understand the WHY of it relative to the player that played it.
If I see a player pull back a bit, sometimes I think to myself that maybe they saw something they weren't expecting or something they weren't quite sure how to handle. When a computer sees the same move, a floating point number among millions changes slightly. I can try and figure out why they might be pulling back, if I did something weird or if I did something totally normal I might suspect it is bait, etc. I can think all these things in a short period of time and while large AIs might have better FLOPS than me, it doesn't understand what I'm doing, why I do it, etc.
Curriculum learning isn't as effective in bots as it is in humans is my contention, I guess.
Fair/unfair is a pointless observation when it comes to humans vs bots. The diversity of human-based problem solving is the perfect friction to train AIs against, imo.
Scala is not even remotely stagnant. Scala programmers are becoming stagnant, but scalac hasnt experienced any major growth slowdowns, Scala native is progressing quite a bit, ScalaJS is still a thing, and Dotty seems to at least be implementing some of that new DOT stuff.
I'm not defending how obnoxious it CAN be to write Scala, but say it's stagnant is just dishonest or misinformed. Or both.
The fallacy there is that Clojure development is drastically slowing in favor cljs. Because there's jobs doesn't mean anything with regards to dev status.
My dad has been writing COBOL for 30+ years, but I think we could both agree that it's a dead language in a certain sense.
My first language was Scheme. I wrote some stupid BATCH scripts at school and decided I wanted to learn to program. I worked my way through half of SICP, etc etc. I LOVE Lisps. I was rooting for Clojure a few years ago.
However, I think Clojure is embracing types too little too late. Large systems are hard to do in dynamic languages. There's no easy way around that. Sure, immutability helps, and having a strong style guide helps and having strong interactive programming helps, but it never goes away that it's harder to do when you can't reason about the structure of something without evaluating that thing.
That there are more Clojure jobs sprouting up as development is drying up screams disaster maintenance to me.
I'd love to be proven wrong. I would LOOOVE for Clojure 2.0 to fully embrace a strong type system and maybe some stricter semantics but it just isn't going to happen. Very few people are familiar with Clj internals, fewer people still are still working on it, and fewer people still plan on continuing that work for a long period of time.
Call me crazy, but I think there are two major threats to Clojure's current reign in the enterprise lispverse.
Racket's rewrite to Chez. That's big. That will mean big performance gains and I think could provide incentive for someone industrious to wrangle some of the crazier parts of racket into a coherent biz-ready language.
The other is Elixir. Now, I hate elixir but people seem to eat that kind of stuff up. They have a strong macro story, BEAM is very powerful in the right hands, and as time goes on it becomes more and more clear that it's easy to write high-concurrency, low-latency, SMP-enabled systems in Elixir.
Elixir doesn't have a type story (racket does, but it's kinda lame), but that never stopped Clojure up to this point.
Also, Clojerl (clj on erlang/otp) exists, which could strengthen the motivation for moving away from Clojure by making pure-clojure applications vulnerable to completely automated porting thus eliminating the need for clojure maintenance programmers.
I mention it just because I've had almost a carbon-copy of that conversation but I showed them Julia and now that person actually is writing Julia for their startup. That person is doing technical chemical engineering stuff, so the fit is a bit more pronounced, but I think it's a neat language aside from that. Parametric types and multiple dispatch and lisp-macros, oh boy!
"Exercise intellectual gratification by not saying things I don't want to hear!"
You should read this whole thread again, from the top down. At this point, you're arguing MY point for me.
I've been using HN since 2008, but I value my anonymity quite a bit so I prefer to burn accounts often. Thanks for the primer and advertisement, but in my near decade of experience, HN is an extremely low quality pool of discussion. I've seen entire product demos derailed by people commenting about typos. I've seen mods threaten users with doxing and worse and then delete it afterwards, I've seen comments disappear for no reason, I've seen entire accounts disappear for no reason.
I can appreciate your perspective of disagreement. I don't CARE about it, but I can appreciate your time. However, putting HN on a pedestal as some sort of beacon of rational debate is just insane. Years later, I still don't understand what the point of HN even is. Even the censorship here is so inconsistent I can't figure out what they want users to think.
Last Note:
Comparing something to fascism is completely warranted in this situation. Does PC culture perpetuate a perceived authority (key!) on what is allowable? Then it's a fascist tool. It's not a complex, gray-area. It's very clear to see.
I will not reply further, I'll read whatever you reply with, I guess but yeah. Have a good day!
Oh jeez, earning your respect for my argument was the entire point!
That it hurts to hear doesn't make it wrong.
Edit: To twist the knife a bit, your comment could be paraphrased as "You're right, but you said a thing I don't like!"
People who support PC culture beat the shit out of people with bats the other day, in case you missed that.
People who support PC culture marched and chanted for dead police officers.
People who support PC culture have called for violence against the President of the greatest country on earth simply for disagreeing with him.
People who support PC culture have called a HOMICIDE case a political weapon. A man was KILLED, and they hand-wave it aside because it doesn't complement their message.
GGit hub deserves every piece of criticism they get. How they can receive so much funding and help and still manage to go down so many times every year absolutely baffles me.
Of all the services I pay for, gitlab might be the best one in terms of bang for buck.