Ok ok, first of all "The Web" and "our source code search engine" are completely different things and ya'll fell for some rather obvious trolling/crappy marketing talk.
Second of all, not liking bootstrap is like not liking martini shakers 'cos you don't have any martinis to shake.
Just because you don't have a use for a tool doesn't make the tool useless and clearly lots of people have martinis to shake.
This trolling and bickering is very non-hacker/non-productive and ya'll need to settle.
With Haskell and Go you feel like you're part of some elite hacker community. With Scala you just feel simultaneously relieved and torn that you can functionally program on the JVM.
Also, the JVM is not an exciting environment.
Edit
Also, which of these feels the most like you're workin' for the man?
I think JVM is very exciting environment :
- powerful (one of best performances in the VM world)
- lot's of libs/fmk
- easy to convince Enterprise to use it
- moving fast these lasts years...
So the ecosystem is quite interesting
Disclaimer : I program mainly with : scala, nodejs, haskell and java + frontweb
I don't think "the JVM is not an exciting environment" is quite on the mark, given that Clojure gets a lot of attention. But I believe this is close.
I think the real reason is that Scala feels too much like a typical Java-with-a-twist JVM language for many people to want to take a closer look. Scala's rep as "Java++" is beneficial in a lot of ways, but failing to excite certain segments of the hacker community is the corresponding downside.
These drones make us terrorists. Never knowing if the next time you or your children go outside will be the time they get destroyed by a faceless, human-less, bomb slinging, heat sensing machine in the sky is fucking terror. We're fighting terror with terror.
No matter what happens, terror has won. We as a nation are fucking terrorists.
Content is not determined by the quantity of words on a page.
Some of the deeper links between linguistics and programming can be quite eye opening and it does not require a large number of words to put those down. If you find one of these, especially through your own work (as in 'from the trenches') then that should carry some weight with you.
If you're doing this independently and re-discovering something that apparently a lot of people such as you have already found out or learned about elsewhere then indeed it is devoid of content. But I'll bet that it wasn't the case for the majority of those that read it.
Lots of programming wisdom is so terse that we have acronyms for it (DRY for instance), that does not mean there is no content there.
Anyway, enough said, I think it is worth reading, and worth 'grokking' for want of a better word, in case you had not already discovered this. Naming stuff is one of the harder things in programming, that different streams of programming should lead to different groups of words being used to describe the code should probably come as no surprise and yet I find myself amazed that there are such deep connections.
For me, the big confusion comes from the fact that if you simulate people, you almost inevitably have to deal with data about people. How can those two be mutually exclusive?
Without a clear definition or concrete examples of what the OP meant by "simulate people" versus "data about people", the post is almost devoid of information (to me; apparently, a lot of people understood what OP meant).
For me, the big confusion comes from the fact that if you simulate people, you almost inevitably have to deal with data about people. How can those two be mutually exclusive?
They're not mutually exclusive: the inverse is not necessarily true. This is basically the entire point of the article. When you're just working with data, don't use constructs which are meant for simulation. It's a subtle way of saying "Don't model data about people (or any other piece of pure information) with mutable objects; prefer values instead."
That's a feeling not a measurement. Clearly economically it's getting worse. And emergency services seem to be getting worse. What exactly is getting better?
All I'm saying is that, especially in crisis, the truth and measurement are far better than emotion. What exactly is getting better?
I read the article. The author started by whining that he lost months of notes. His solution was to beef up his syncing. I still have no idea how he came to that conclusion when backup technology has existed since the dinosaurs. I guess that technology just isn't new or exciting enough to blog about.
I think the author really just wanted an excuse to use his Raspberry Pi.
I do love to tinker. But I don't do foolish things like replace backups with fragile dogshit.
Author here, I've had plenty of excuses to use my Pi in the past, this is just the latest one. I think you are incorrect in characterizing this as "fragile dogshit", this solution is in fact much more robust than my previous cloud solution.
BTSync also does built in versioning which solves the backup issue.
> BTSync also does built in versioning which solves the backup issue.
So for example, if a person was working on a thesis document and then accidentally overwrote that with a blank version which gets synced across all the nodes, it would be possible to reverse this action and recover the original thesis document ?
While I haven't exercised this functionality yet my understanding is yes that is possible. You can specify the number of days to store history. (defaults to 30)
most here would keep his/her document versioned in subversion or git. I don't think technically minded individuals don't confuse syncing and backups (or versioning). This however does not apply to non-technical people. That is where dropbox is a win, since they do versioning.
