OtterCoder

It seems like the confounding factors are enormous to testing this sort of thing. I also think it's problematic that those studies were using students. Strong typing becomes really beneficial after you begin to understand the flow and architecture of code, and your codebases become larger than a simple Project Euler problem.

A very skilled reader can read text at around 400wpm with good comprehension, so I can believe he can listen to code at those speeds.

A professional typist is somewhere around 80wpm, and a stenographer can reach up to 250wpm. 450 would have to represent an enormous innovation in typing methods.

Frankly, even if you could, 450wpm would be an irresponsible speed to code at. As mediocre as my own typing speed is, it's never the limiting factor when I code. There's just too much to consider.

That is patently untrue. Otherwise, agencies wouldn't exist.

It's a disingenuous title. The article is cool, but not what I was lead to believe.

35%? I think you underestimate the bad blood and ill faith in the US political system. Both major parties are mere parodies of genuine debate. I will concede that 35%, being Trump's approval rating, I assume, is an easy and valid lower bound.

The difficulty wasn't in the engine. JS itself is just as good with accepting Unicode characters as Rust, both in code and strings. The problem was with the PEG implementation. Without some sort of shorthand for Unicode families, defining programming languages that are valid in multiple real-world languages becomes a serious burden.

I remember playing with PEGjs back in the day, making a toy implementation of JS in JS. It had terrible Unicode support though. To build a token out of valid Unicode non-whitespace characters took pages and pages of range definitions. Is that any better here?

Thank you. Is there a particular native OCaml server implementation that is considered best, or at least most popular?

What server implementation is the author referring to?

It says right in the article. You train it on your 'top performers' and then use it to increase groupthink and tribalism in your company.

But web design philosophy has been creeping on to the desktop for quite a while now. Apps like Skype and Slack are ludicrously overstyled these days. Flash and chrome have always played teeter-totter with utility and functionality, in every field.

It's 2017, you should be mature enough to shrug off language like this, and distinguish between slang and formal meaning. Differing ability always becomes an insult, and if you knew anything about the march of language, you'd know that this is a treadmill you cannot catch up with.

It's not language I use or agree with, but my opinion isn't going to change something that turns out to be fundamental to how people communicate. You need to learn how to live and let live.

I find these direct links to PDFs infuriating. Html is perfectly fine for documents like this.

Enervating? I find it the opposite. It's exciting and energizing to think of what we can do with this.

Well, if any of these silly EmDrives ever work out, maybe we can get Mars down to that time too.

That's astoundingly quick. 30-90 days is in the same range as crossing the Atlantic via tall ship. With transfer time that low, it really does seem feasible. The two year gaps are a bit rough, but there are plenty of ways to plan for it.

Oh, this fork isn't in earnest. It's being overhyped because it's a select few people throwing a tantrum about ableism in the absence of any actual malice. There's no actual instability in the platform itself this time.

This is development we're talking about, not ops. Make sure your deployment plan includes rollback capability, then let ops do what ops does. Almost never should you encounter a dev issue that needs emergency code pushed in less time than it takes to make a phone call and get someone to remote in.

Why would you ever need full week coverage? Just tell hires that Monday Tuesday is the schedule. It's not like factory work where the machines need to run constantly.

I have no idea at all what purpose that would serve. Care to elaborate?

Thank heavens. Google's efforts to 'improve' the web have been disastrous. Like turning every list of facts into a pointless ramble because Google needs 1000 words of 'rich content'. And Amp being a push to hobble pages by making them into a proprietary cache format instead of encouraging simpler HTML.

Even Excalibur can be used to mince garlic, and even a supercomputer can be used to play Zork.

> Therefore, it's probably impossible to keep the heightened emotions out of debate without strict rules on content and participation.

History proves this, long before the advent of digital fora. Consider the elaborate, stilted parliamentary procedure and its variants. While it's quite burdensome, it's also considered a total necessity in many of the great deliberatory bodies that stand today.

Even with such a ceremonious structure, fist fights in national parliaments are by no means a thing of the past.

I think that this is because more than persuasion, humans are emotionally driven to create in-groups and out-groups, and only by divorcing emotion as much as possible can any real reasoning and discussion take place.

If there's one thing that profanity and vulgarity is actually good at, it's forming an in-group, which is antithetical to good discussion.

Excellent answers already. It also involves some time problem solving on the craft at large. Take some time reading the words of people who have innovated in the field and argued with their peers. See if you can work out where the champions of OOP pushed our understanding and where they failed. See if you can understand the functional programmers have created beauty out of chaos, and where they've drunk a little too much Kool-Ade. Once you've understood, write a few example programs in those styles and languages.

In understanding the radical designs and patterns that great coders have used and argued about, you'll see you own code style change, even unconsciously.

I'm perfectly fine with people having the right to be crass. It becomes a problem when it's glorified as the point of free speech, and when entertainers believe that people bowlderizing their own, private copies of things is unforgivable.

The point of free speech is to ensure that unpopular political opinions have room to air, everything else is a happy side effect.

I completely agree with you on tough topics. I think the idea that politics are considered taboo is one of the great American tragedies. I'm honestly a bit addicted to debate.

I'm referring to resorting to crassness on an already contentious topic. As an example, I often spend time defending my religious beliefs to atheists. I'm happy to talk all day about how I feel about Dawkins' arguments and the like, but the second someone brings up 'your stupid f———— sky fairy', I can tell that the conversation is not going to be productive any longer.

I understand what you're saying, but not all analogies are useful. I've seen variations on the diet analogy applied to vulgarity or pointless offensiveness fairly often, and I think it's a pretty poor one.

There's nothing wholesome or 'meaty' about vulgarity. It raises the temperature of the argument and doesn't contribute useful information. It's more akin a diner pouring pig slop on a restaurant table and insisting that it's the other patrons' fault for finding it impossible to eat in those circumstances.

I'd accept a job title like 'Technical Priest' or 'Code Surgeon'. One of my former bosses half-jokingly changed my title to 'Web Prophet'.

This is an excellent example of comment escalation.

> It's not purely intellectual pursuit.

I feel like you don't really understand theoretical mathematicians. Application is a side effect of the highest maths, not a goal of its practitioners.