Looks much like http://tamejs.org/ in the semantics. I guess if you're pre-processing anyway, you may as well pre-process all the way.
625 karma · joined December 14, 2009
http://mattdw.github.com/ http://problemattic.net/
I miss a set type, I miss solid iteration (although coffescript mitigates that), and immutable datatypes would be nice (I've got used to them in Clojure.) I miss a solid FP stdlib, although jQuery has map and filter, which goes a long way.
That's the ones I can immediately think of :).
It's not even the interesting case of a Flash runtime standalone app being approved, let alone the browser plugin that would be needed to 'support Flash content' in any reasonable sense.
(Also, as the article notes, it obviously doesn't work at all for interactive Flash content, either. It sounds like a glorified flv->mp4 service.)
(I am not entirely convinced that faux-polaroid effects are a tragic loss of data as he suggests.)
But I'm also generally unconvinced by the larger point; "the right way" might have a longer learning curve, but once you know it there's no reason it should be any slower than the "wrong" way.
In that sense, 'pataphysical programming might be more common than we realize.
On the other hand, treating software systems as realities in their own right – with only incidental mappings back to our reality – is a fascinating idea. (Obviously an entirely self-contained reality is no good; I/O are pretty fundamental.) I guess the question is, what happens when we stop requiring software model things, and instead let it be things?
It's curious how few examples you need to begin forming new ones.
That was only for multi-hour reading sessions, too. Casual usage is perfectly fine.
Clay Shirky has written about this at length [1]; the basic point being that women are socialized their whole lives to not be entitled or aggressive but to stay quiet and in the background, while men are constantly socialized to take what they want, step forward, go for it, "be a man" etc. Obviously there is much variation, and yes, geeks tend toward the not-so-aggro end of the table, but I think it's still an important point.
I'd also suggest that, sure, there are lots of men not speaking at conferences, but I suspect proportionally there are even more women for whom that is true.
[1] http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/01/a-rant-about-women/
(edit: added link)
You have a good point here, but it's not just that they're sweaty, it's that all too often they're actively hostile to women – whether it's sexist jokes, an obsession with rape in DND games (all too frequent) or just the way they seem shocked that a woman could actually be good at coding. Makes things a bit unpleasant, yeah?
Not to say that Greenspun is wrong in his conclusions, but when women are saying "I find it unpleasant to be in the industry because…", it seems kinda patronising to turn around and suggest that they're wrong.
I am assuming you're fine until you have an official/legal presence in the US, at which point you come under US patent law. Does this sound correct?
Nice idea, though.