jdpage

Maybe you're going to the wrong bars. :)

Polos can go to hell. I usually wear nice jeans and a black t-shirt to work (but then, the CEO appears to be wearing bright orange shorts), but if somebody said tomorrow "jdpage, we need you to dress a little more professionally", then I will come in the next day with a full button-down shirt. I've never met a polo that's as comfortable as a decent button-down.

While I like this (for reasons that others have already mentioned), the lack of an italic version is a bit of a killer for me, along with the lack of full latin-1 support.

If you haven't seen it yet, Fantasque Sans Mono (formerly Cosmic Sans Neue) is my current favourite. It's worth checking out. http://openfontlibrary.org/en/font/fantasque-sans-mono

I know this is Serious Business, but all I can think is -- have these people not SEEN Star Wars?

It doesn't, because of the finite number of entries. The scheme classifies sequences by an arbitrarily-large, but finite, prefix.

Ooh, I'm seeing some non-ASCII characters here. How are you handling that? Can I use => instead of ⇨ and <- instead of ←? How do you usually type those? Is there a way of ASCII-ifying or de-ASCII-ifying source files?

He was Geordi LaForge (the guy with the visor) on Star Trek: the Next Generation.

There's a difference between the State of California and the California Coastal Commission. The Commission is a public agency (i.e. a group of people representing the best interests of the public) which happens to be funded by the legislature. Specifically, a legislature which is underfunding them.

I realize that you were highlighting some specific, well-known examples, but I'm finding it pretty funny that you could have just said "the nth root of any integer", which encompasses all of the numbers and sets you mentioned before it. (I'm a maths student; it's finals; everything is hilarious now)

The separate Messaging app currently has stickers, I don't see why they'd remove them.

And yes, the Pusheen emoticons are the best.

Not happening, because it would mean multi-line function arguments, which have been declared "ugly".

http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/

It won't be. The Python parser has to remain LL(1) by BDFL fiat.[1]

1: http://legacy.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3099/

At time of writing there are three links to tarsnap.com on the front page: this one, scrypt, and spiped. I think that means that you win HN, sir. It's been a good run everyone, time to wind things down.

Are you using a version control system? Of course you are. This means that you can (relatively) safely delete anything you want in the working directory, because you can go back and retrieve older versions from the VCS.

These pants? http://www.prana.com/stretch-zion-pant.html?color=Charcoal

They really don't look that bad to me.

Sorry. That's actually the original (and still an acceptable) spelling, and I rather prefer it. English doesn't really have enough vowels, so distinguishing between `e' and `œ' makes sense, orthographically. I also tend to use diæreses where appropriate.

Of course, normally I would give at least a passing thought to using more modernized spellings in this context, but I have spent most of the week writing up a series of observation sessions and my brain is beginning to revolt, liquefy, and dribble out of my ears.

I would guess that the wrinkle is that one's mouth would still be chock-full of bacteria, lending the breath a fœtid odour.

On thy own heads be it. Here is the code, as written when I was 16. You'll need Tcl 8.5 to run it (8.3 is probably fine, but you'll have to change the line at the beginning), because all the cool kids implement interpreted languages in other interpreted languages. (Actually, wasn't Arc implemented that way originally?)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zqahavw2yoeca5p/stringsh.zip

I once built a stupid language for fun. Think a bastard child of FORTH and brainfuck, but in two dimensions. To give an idea of how stupid it was, I will fill this in.

    You appear to be advocating a new:
    [ ] functional  [X] imperative  [ ] object-oriented  [X] procedural [X] stack-based
    [ ] "multi-paradigm"  [ ] lazy  [X] eager  [ ] statically-typed  [X] dynamically-typed
    [ ] pure  [ ] impure  [ ] non-hygienic  [X] visual  [ ] beginner-friendly
    [X] non-programmer-friendly  [X] completely incomprehensible
    programming language.  Your language will not work.  Here is why it will not work.
    
    You appear to believe that:
    [ ] Syntax is what makes programming difficult
    [ ] Garbage collection is free                [ ] Computers have infinite memory
    [ ] Nobody really needs:
        [X] concurrency  [X] a REPL  [X] debugger support  [X] IDE support  [ ] I/O
        [X] to interact with code not written in your language
    [ ] The entire world speaks 7-bit ASCII
    [ ] Scaling up to large software projects will be easy
    [ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a new language will be easy
    [ ] Convincing programmers to adopt a language-specific IDE will be easy
    [ ] Programmers love writing lots of boilerplate
    [ ] Specifying behaviors as "undefined" means that programmers won't rely on them
    [X] "Spooky action at a distance" makes programming more fun

    Unfortunately, your language (has/lacks):
    [-] comprehensible syntax  [-] semicolons  [+] significant whitespace  [-] macros
    [+] implicit type conversion  [-] explicit casting  [-] type inference
    [+] goto  [-] exceptions  [-] closures  [-] tail recursion  [-] coroutines
    [-] reflection  [-] subtyping  [-] multiple inheritance  [-] operator overloading
    [-] algebraic datatypes  [-] recursive types  [-] polymorphic types
    [-] covariant array typing  [-] monads  [-] dependent types
    [-] infix operators  [+] nested comments  [+] multi-line strings  [-] regexes
    [-] call-by-value  [-] call-by-name  [+] call-by-reference  [-] call-cc
    
    The following philosophical objections apply:
    [ ] Programmers should not need to understand category theory to write "Hello, World!"
    [ ] Programmers should not develop RSI from writing "Hello, World!"
    [ ] The most significant program written in your language is its own compiler
    [X] The most significant program written in your language isn't even its own compiler
    [ ] No language spec
    [ ] "The implementation is the spec"
       [ ] The implementation is closed-source  [ ] covered by patents  [ ] not owned by you
    [ ] Your type system is unsound  [ ] Your language cannot be unambiguously parsed
       [ ] a proof of same is attached
       [ ] invoking this proof crashes the compiler
    [X] The name of your language makes it impossible to find on Google
    [X] Interpreted languages will never be as fast as C
    [ ] Compiled languages will never be "extensible"
    [ ] Writing a compiler that understands English is AI-complete
    [ ] Your language relies on an optimization which has never been shown possible
    [ ] There are less than 100 programmers on Earth smart enough to use your language
    [ ] ____________________________ takes exponential time
    [ ] ____________________________ is known to be undecidable
    
    Your implementation has the following flaws:
    [ ] CPUs do not work that way
    [ ] RAM does not work that way
    [ ] VMs do not work that way
    [ ] Compilers do not work that way
    [ ] Compilers cannot work that way
    [ ] Shift-reduce conflicts in parsing seem to be resolved using rand()
    [X] You require the compiler to be present at runtime
    [ ] You require the language runtime to be present at compile-time
    [X] Your compiler errors are completely inscrutable
    [X] Dangerous behavior is only a warning
    [X] The compiler crashes if you look at it funny
    [X] The VM crashes if you look at it funny
    [X] You don't seem to understand basic optimization techniques
    [ ] You don't seem to understand basic systems programming
    [ ] You don't seem to understand pointers
    [ ] You don't seem to understand functions
    
    Additionally, your marketing has the following problems:
    [ ] Unsupported claims of increased productivity
    [ ] Unsupported claims of greater "ease of use"
    [ ] Obviously rigged benchmarks
       [ ] Graphics, simulation, or crypto benchmarks where your code just calls
           handwritten assembly through your FFI
       [ ] String-processing benchmarks where you just call PCRE
       [ ] Matrix-math benchmarks where you just call BLAS
    [X] Noone really believes that your language is faster than:
        [X] assembly  [X] C  [X] FORTRAN  [X] Java  [X] Ruby  [X] Prolog
    [X] Rejection of orthodox programming-language theory without justification
    [ ] Rejection of orthodox systems programming without justification
    [ ] Rejection of orthodox algorithmic theory without justification
    [ ] Rejection of basic computer science without justification
    
    Taking the wider ecosystem into account, I would like to note that:
    [X] Your complex sample code would be one line in: almost anything, actually
    [ ] We already have an unsafe imperative language
    [ ] We already have a safe imperative OO language
    [ ] We already have a safe statically-typed eager functional language
    [ ] You have reinvented Lisp but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented Javascript but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented Java but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented C++ but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented PHP but worse
    [ ] You have reinvented PHP better, but that's still no justification
    [ ] You have reinvented Brainfuck but non-ironically

    In conclusion, this is what I think of you:
    [ ] You have some interesting ideas, but this won't fly.
    [X] This is a bad language, and you should feel bad for inventing it.
    [X] Programming in this language is an adequate punishment for inventing it.

In fact, it was so magnificently stupid that when I described it on a forum I frequent, one of the administrator considered banning me because I obviously deserved it if I would invent something that deranged.

That's exactly what git add -p does, and it's vastly more convenient than when you don't have a staging area.

Or Ludum Dare this Friday...

I would say that establishing a management tree makes semi-sense, since they seem to have a bunch more people working on it from the get-go that you'd usually have. In that case, I can see why they'd want to arrange who's working on what.

"Math professor" probably means at the college or university level -- high school math is widely regarded as complete and utter BS.

I've taken... a rather significant pile of maths classes at this point (I'm majoring in it), and I've never felt like any of the college-level maths classes assigned busywork. I may not have liked the size of the workload (oh god, real analysis), but I've never felt it was unreasonable.

That would definitely be an epilepsy trigger. Hell, I don't even have epilepsy and I had to cover the image with my hand just to be able to finish reading the article.

It's Unity 3D, which if I recall correctly uses C# .NET.

It's recommended for nonprofits, but not restricted to. I have sleepingcyb.org, and I am not a nonprofit.

> ... printed with such high quality that you could actually take a closer look and it would reveal something new.

Last time I was at the NC Museum of Art, they had on display a wall-sized aerial composite photo of the grounds. Next to it was a box full of magnifying glasses and a plaque inviting you to do exactly that.

Yes, but there is a point at which it's better to just hand-write some code which is equivalent to the automaton, rather than trying to use a regexp.

This is what a proper email-validation regexp looks like: http://www.ex-parrot.com/pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html

An operation-based synchronizer is a synchronizer which sends just the changes (the "operations") to the server, rather than the whole new state. So if I add a line of text to something, then it would send back a message to the server saying "this line of text was added".

Presumably, a state-based synchronizer sends the entire updated state every time, but I don't know offhand.

Depending on how rigorously the research on this is done, this is a test I might actually take, especially since, as he says in the article, a lot of it is stuff you can improve if you find yourself lacking.

On the other hand, I don't want to take an IQ test. This is because you end up with a number which can now be used to place you on a scale relative to others, which as far as I'm concerned is fairly useless[1]. I'd much rather be judged based on what I've done rather on some number that purports to measure my potential.

[1] In my (fairly limited, I grant) experience, IQ scores are mostly used by insecure navel-gazers as a sort of bragging right.