2,177 karma · joined May 4, 2011
I don't see this as a trap at all. I use IntelliJ for practically everything, and switching languages frequently (currently between Typescript and Scala several times a day) has not been difficult. I get way more benefit from developing increased familiarity with my environment.
Why would that be true?
Object.keys(envars)
.map(envar => `${envar}=${envars[envar]}`)
.join(' ')
|> `$ ${%}`
|> chalk.dim(%, 'node', args.join(' '))
|> console.log(%);
Okay, from the other comments, I gather this is like Hack. Does any other language use a pipe operator for non-unary functions? Does the `%` syntax apply more generally? What is the type of `foo(%, 1, 2)`? One would expect it to be the same as `placeholder => foo(placeholder, 1, 2)`, but is it?For example, in Scala, if I have `foo(Int, Int, Int): Int`, then `foo(_, 1, 2)` has type `Int => Int`. That's true anywhere, but in the JavaScript proposal we seem to have a syntax that only applies in a special case.
Also, given that they have translation and live transcription of videos, live translation of videos was the next logical step. I hope it's available for all audio sources.
Maybe for a two-legged device like a capacitor, but for something in, say, a SOT-23 package, you can't be sure what it is from the outside.
Then again, maybe even something in a capacitor-like package could both communicate and be powered.
I don't like this particular lie. It seems like as soon as we find it acceptable to tell it, we get to choose how complex or user-hostile the algorithm gets to be while still telling the same lie.