Why not? It seems reasonable to me that as the number of people working on some piece of code grows the average skill will settle around "not an expert", whatever that means.
In my Emacs I've got 1) eldoc (displaying signature of function at point), 2) function source lookup, 3) function documentation lookup, 4) flycheck (display compiler err/warn on save), 5) auto-completion. Among a few other things like go-guru integration which I haven't used much yet but I can see its use.
All of those features come from editor agnostic golang tools.
Could you explain why any of what you say a 'pro-business' politician should do is pro-business? I think a lot of people would disagree with you on those points.
If you really felt like the possibility of a 'real' discussion was nil, just don't post. taxicabjesus made valid points, and you just condescendingly insult him. For what purpose?
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Do you want men to sway their hips? You think something like that would help? Or would that be a reasonable thing to ask since it sorta reduces to the structure of the body?
There's evidence in the leaked emails that parts of the media take orders from political entities or politically interested parent companies. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a source that isn't essentially a known liar.
You're asserting that Assange supports Trump because of the fact he's opposing HRC on the basis of "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality.
Believing that sort of dichotomy is "pretty silly" and says plenty about you.
I hear people saying the 'most corrupt candidate ever!' about both candidates. More about HRC than Trump though. For some reason I doubt both assertions.
In what cases is a `richer' structure better? `Richer' to my ears sounds like `more complicated'. The basic function form of (fun arg1 arg2 ...) or fun(arg1, arg2) is adequate for most things and in lisp when you want to express something that doesn't work well in that form you write a macro to grok some structure (like cond). That all seems very structured to me, and I see no issue with the base structure being trivial. In fact I'd argue that's necessary to achieve a calculus over the code.
The sentiment of the article seems to boil down to "damn young people trying new things! they're so stupid! so arrogant!" and only counters with the prevailing conservative wisdom with no backing argument. The author is sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "you're wrong!" without giving any reason.
I just graduated from a state University a couple weeks ago. I'm passionate about Computer Science and ready to put everything I have into meaningful work. I'm currently working for a computing support group in the LIGO collaboration as a datacenter assistant. You know, the people who discovered gravity waves ;-)
Location: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Remote: No
Willing to relocate: I'd love to get out of Milwaukee
Technologies: Java, Elixir, Common Lisp, Emacs, git