hfkwer

What do you mean by the "type" of a function? It doesn't sound like you're using any kind of standard definition for the word.

I'm not sure I understand the criticism. You have three functions of type (int, int) -> bool. Where the type system accepts one, it accepts the others. I fail to see the issue here? How is the type system supposed to distinguish them? It's up to you, the developer, to do it. If you have two ints x and y, and you mess up and pass y to a function where you wanted to write x, the compiler is never going to catch it for you either.

It's sad to think that everyone had to work so hard to solve a problem whose solution is 27 years old. One day we'll just be able to run `ip -6 addr show scope global` and get the correct answer without wasting everyone's bandwidth and compute.

And mp3 persists despite being inferior to any alternative. The reason isn't intrinsic value, it's inertia.

Do you have anything to contribute beyond rehashing memes? I can have a go at it too: better not miss a bracket on line 2000 of your document, otherwise latex will complain about a runaway argument in a different file and you'll have to sift through the whole thing to find where the error is.

Do any scientific publishers accept it?

Not sure why you're being sarcastic. PDF is terrible for anything other than printing documents.

While what you're saying is true, I get the feeling that you want to say that this is in contrast to LaTeX3, which isn't "plain old LaTeX 2e". Except... that it is. The project to have a new engine has been scrapped a long time ago. LaTeX3 is just another layer above LaTeX 2e. With all its cruft.

The appeal of word isn't the WYSIWYG aspect. It's that... it. just. works. You want a table? There's only one way to make a table, and it works. You want to insert an image? It f*cking works. You want to format running headers a certain way? Believe it or not, it works! No weird incompatibilities between packages. No delving through the depth of 1990-era latex library code to figure out where the weird space comes from. Everything just works! And there's documentation online! Written for humans!

Trust me, writing code is not the issue with latex. I've written C++ code for embedded MCUs. I've taught python to undergrads. The pain does not even compare.

What a weird comment.

I'm a math professor. I've written articles, books, lecture notes, exams, exercise sheets, presentations... with latex. Hell, even a custom class for a journal I participate in.

I hate this language with a passion. The design choices may have made sense in the 80s when 128 kB of RAM was considered high-end, "tooling" was an unknown term, and modern parser design an academic matter. If I have to read "Runaway argument" and sift through a hundred lines of log to find an error again I will have a stroke.

LaTeX3? I have great admiration for the work they've done. But they have made at least two mistakes.

1. The fundamental mistake of insisting on backwards compatibility. Latex is choke-full of historical cruft. How many times have I read things to the effect of:

"Oh, you want an inline list? And you're using the inline-list package?! You poor fool! You should be using inllst3 with the xtabl option. Holy shit, you're using hyperref too?? (Spoiler alert: everyone uses fucking hyperref.) You cretin. Well, you should load these three other packages in this specific order. Then paste these esoteric commands:

\makeatletter\def\tbl@lst#1{\hy@tbl\vphantom{#2}#1\strut\lbl@lst##&!@\makeatother

No, I'm not going to explain what the commands do. Figure it out. Documentation? In the texbook. It's not online, you expect Knuth to work for free? Go buy it on amazon, you freeloader."

Don't get me started on how to get arXiv to accept your biblatex files.

Throw all this into the trash and start anew. There's no other good way forward.

2. The superficial on creating a theoretically beautiful and consistent syntax that is designed for computers, not for humans.

Seriously, go to the authors' website, the "LaTeX3 examples" page https://www.alanshawn.com/tech/2020/05/25/latex-3.html#examp.... Here's how you multiply a length by a float and store it somewhere.

    \cs_generate_variant:Nn  \fp_set:Nn {Nx}
    % #1: input name
    % #2: output name
    % #3: factor
    \cs_set:Npn \__multiply_length:NNn #1#2#3 {
        \fp_set:Nx \l_tmpa_fp {\dim_to_fp:n {#1}}
        \fp_set:Nx \l_tmpb_fp {\l_tmpa_fp * #3}
        \dim_set:Nx \l_tmpa_dim {\fp_to_dim:n {\l_tmpb_fp}}
        \dim_set_eq:NN #2 \l_tmpa_dim
    }

How anyone can look at this and think "that's the proper way of doing things" is beyond me.

I've started writing stuff with msword and I honestly like it better. Even UTN28 kind of makes sense. Yes, I'm expecting a fight after writing this.

Why would they owe you such detailed explanations? You're asking for a full-on incident report. These take days to write and there's no reason for the public at large to need it.

Easy karma.

Gnu emacs is only 38 years old. And vscode is a fad...?

What wouldn't work about it?

You need an SSH server running and the remote machine to be accessible (through NAT, firewall) to connect there with SSH. With tunnels, it's inverted: the remote machine needs to be able to connect to the central server, which is typically much easier; then you can connect to it.

That's on screen readers developers. And I don't know when that comment you seem to remember dates back to, but I have had several blind students in my math lectures over the past decade. They seemed did fine.

I imagine that itronitron's point is that the issue of parking as presented in the article is a typically American feature. Many other countries deal with it differently.

It's just an expression of irritation towards people who contribute nothing of value to the discussion about the content of the article. "oh no I see ads on your site it sucks!" Erm, okay? Who cares? Install an ad blocker if it bothers you so much. It's faster than typing a comment on hn for greater pay off.

So if you turn your back on the ceiling light you lose your connection?

That's the goal. This way headlines will read "meta/alphabet fined $X million for selling user data to cartels/illuminati" and nobody will know WTF this is about because they'd need to read the article to learn it's the parent company of Facebook/Google.

>Use the old protocol by default, write new scripts with a flag requiring the new protocol from the server.

Next time, read the whole comment before replying.

Your examples aren't relevant at all and full of hyperbole. Are you replying to what I wrote or showing off your oratory skills to the peanuts gallery?

SSH is a protocol. Just have the client negotiate the version of the protocol when establishing a connection. Use the old protocol by default, write new scripts with a flag requiring the new protocol from the server. Boom. You maintain backwards compatibility with ancient systems, but you don't force old mistakes upon current day users.

So many things could be fixed if we didn't insist on backwards compatibility with ancient systems. Shell command line parsing is just one example.

I'm all for it. Let me pay twice the price for my phone and keep it ten years. It's a better deal for everyone, and firstly for the planet - no need to dig up rare minerals and waste energy and water to churn new phones all the time.

No, but US laws can only mandate something for goods that enter or are manufactured in the US. Other countries can pass their own laws.

What is even your point with this comment? Are you somehow claiming that electronics are to be compared to lettuce? This is just absurd.

What is "conventional programming", pray tell?

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

This piece was written before React even existed. (React is from 2013, this is from 2005.) Besides, I can't think of a single "factory" oriented concept in React, could you elaborate?