pieterbreed

Great! Now we can disrespect our customers at scale!

Is this for the runtime of the compiled code or for the compiling machine? Do they generate slow code if the compiler is running on non-intel?

I'm sorry if I touched you on an ouchie.

> Its still homoiconic

> they can still, and in the case of the linked project, probably are turned into the exact same data structure.

What you are saying means it is not homoiconic any longer. If you print out the parsed representation of lisp code, you get back the same lisp code. If you print out the parsed representation of this whitespace code, you get back the lisp code (data) also. But this is different to what you fed into the parser.

The point of homoiconicity is that the data structure representing the code is the code itself. There's no syntax, it just represents itself. It's super simple. A programming language with syntax cannot be homoiconic. This is complexity.

> I get your objection insofar as whats the point?

"Easy" IS an argument to choose something over something else, but "simple" is a better, stronger argument. Parens syntax is simple. Whitespace syntax is easy, iff you come from/is familiar with a python-style background.

We are debating some obscure thing. The point is the argument :) I hope you have a great day.

What the author did is cool in a social sense; lispers go on and on about homoiconicity, which here means that the original lisp code is data. The author uses this property by reading this code/data and transforming it into text, that represents syntax-full code. It is "cool" because it demonstrates the value of homoiconicity.

However; it's not cool in a technical sense. The result is not homoiconic any more. Code that had a cool property has been turned into code that does not, and the result looks like every other syntax-full blub language. The result destroys value.

As a dvorak typist HJKL as a concept is dead to me.

OP will be sleeping in, eating at the pub nextdoor, looking at Table Mountain on the way back home and playing Dave the Diver in the afternoon.

One of my users apologised for having an AZERTY keyboard. The people out there suffer us.

Emacs or vi?

If i knew my post would do well on hn I would have posted it here myself. Well played.

lol yeah - before posting I was trying to convince myself not to post, and what yous dais was exactly my counter "narrative".

But still; Between 10^3 and 10^77, that 77 OWNS

> That is more than 10^77, pretty close to the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe, 10^80

Ugh. My pedant-bone is itching... That's not "pretty close" at all. There's a universe of distance between 10^77 and 10^80.

Welcome to life.

Don't worry though. Everything will be OK.

(The things I'm about to say is/are true for me. So is most of what everyone else here is saying. While it's good that you are asking your peers for help, the answers you will get won't make "sense" until you discover them for yourself. (Like the A-HA moment when you finally grok a mathematics proof or a famous algorithm). This will require effort from you.)

The facts of the matter are simply this:

- Your life is unique the same way that everyone else's is. - Your journey is not the same as anybody else's. - You are a whole person. - You have all the tools you need. - :)

The answers you seek are of a spiritual nature and you need some kind of spiritual process to discover them. I can recommend Buddhism, Toaism or even the Yogic disciplines/technologies. What they all have in common is an insistence that one needs to meditate, daily...

(Meditation, loosely, is learning how to accept and acknowledge thoughts that are uncomfortable.)

Good luck!

This sounds very much like something the SA Air Force did with their mirages in the Bush war of the 70's and 80's.

BTW - There is a book written about the history of the Mirage in the SAAF called 'vlamgat' (lit. fire/fiery - behind/ass). Try http://www.saairforce.co.za/reviews/33/vlamgat-cd.

Anyway. In this book, which is written by an ex-pilot, a maneuver is described which sounds very similar to the pop-up. The aircraft also approaches the target at low altitude, then pitches up. As the pilots pull up on the stick they release their bombs, but continue climbing up and away. The bombs (old fashioned, dumb bombs) would then fly in a parabolic trajectory like you'd expect and land somewhere near the target ;)

If I remember correctly this tactic was actually used in combat with surprisingly effective results. I say surprising because nobody believed you could actually hit a target with a bomb that flies in a trajectory with a horizontal length of a few 100 to 1000 meters and was released on the pilot's 'gut' feeling...

no! please elaborate! :)

Well, I don't have any material on it but you can see that it makes sense from a mechanical physics point of view. Load up a craft to maximum possible weight (with ballast even) Then fly as high and is fast as you can (during which you build up the maximum achievable potential and kinetic energy) then during a dive build up as much speed as you can (during which you convert your potential energy from the weight and height of the craft into more kinetic energy) as you level out, you dump the excess weight and start climbing. Since you now have less weight but the same kinetic energy, you are free to take your craft higher than the height from which it started to descend.

There is a rumor going around in the South African Air Force that the South Africans with the help of the Israeli Air Force (who had big ties in the bad old days) figured out a way to shoot the SR71s down. It had to do with a technique called storm-climbing (which was novelized by Wilbur Smith in 'Eagle in the Sky') where a normal fighter aircraft would go full-tilt with maximum weight in a downward trajectory, flatten out the dive, dump excess weight, and start climbing vertically. This way the pilots would get to an altitude where the missiles could get a successful lock, which in this case was far higher than the 'normal' ceiling for these aircraft. From this height they could then fire off the missiles. I'm not at all sure if they ever attempted it, but I'm pretty sure they didn't succeed. Still in interesting thing to hear :)