I've written something similar myself in C++ before, but I'm curious if people actually have interest in using something like this regularly. I had thought I would do something like configure lynx to use it but the novelty quickly wore off and instead I went and started playing with the Mandelbrot set in the terminal and forgot all about it.
So, outside of giving your data to government agencies, you're saying the worst thing Google can do is use ML to turn you into a consumer-zombie? While I mostly share your stance on this, that argument just seems completely ineffective (in part to the sense of exceptionalism you mention). Unless there's some poster child case of this that I'm unaware of, I'm not sure why "big scary ML-injected ads" keep getting brought up when there are potentially more valid concerns out there.
Moving on, the remainder of the argument relies on the assumption of an antagonistic state, which if true, means you have a much bigger and immediate problem in the first place. Google or not, China seems to be doing pretty well as a surveillance state so that doesn't seem too convincing either.
So I don't think that opinions will change without a string of high profile incidents that substantiate both of the concerns you mention.
I think if someone is going to use something like SpaceVim, it would be best to start early and just learn that instead of vanilla vim. The initial cognitive load will be high for learning both anyways.
I personally do not have the patience for it even after giving it a try. But in my case, my 3yo laptop might just be too slow to handle all that bloat.
I used to run more commands from vim, but now I personally find Ctrl-Z is usually more convenient for all the one-off commands. If I do run stuff from inside of vim, it's now usually ":w !" or ":r !" (or some custom command wrapper around those).
> This is an infix alias for cons.
> This is an infix alias for snoc.
> A convenient infix (flipped) version of toListOf.
> An infix version of itoListOf.
Indeed. Especially in such a simple scheme, e.g. if they find people aren't giving away enough money and try to incentivize it, people will just form cycles. If you start doing triangle-detection on the graph (as a stand-in for some arbitrary regulatory measure), they'll just make longer ones.
And beyond pure greed and the political aspect, there are professors that also have pointless grudges.
edit: note that the cleanest way would probably to write your own converter so you could avoid the union type, but I didn't want to put that in and have to write a comment about it.
You can pass union types to the macro, so that should handle your "varying types" problem. In terms of nesting, I just create another struct with its own JSON.mapping and use that as the type for the field.
Hmm, seems like the author either does not know about JSON.mapping [0] or just chose not to use it. Honestly, the corresponding macro for YAML is the main reason I use Crystal for CLI apps since it comes with the stdlib. YAML is easy enough to write quickly that I don't have to do too much with option parsing. Plus you can just use your editor rather than the shell.
Aha. Now I think this makes more sense.