tabtab

Re: "Autoit feels dated"

Being old by itself isn't bad. What's an example practical downside of its old style?

How does AutoIt compare to AHK? I realize AutoIt is not open-source (free EXE), but besides that what are the key differences? The AutoIt VisualBasic-like language looks easier to learn for those of us who grew up on Microsoft. Can anyone confirm that?

Is there a sample or tutorial that jumps right into typical examples of what's different or special about it? I tried to find such, but the docs get lost in syntax details and other minutia. I want the ADHD-meat-and-potatoes tutorial. Maybe that's asking too much, but I did it anyhow, as any ADHDer would.

Next you'll tell me light is both particles and a wave. This scientific saucery must stop! Order it to pick one or jailit!

How would Republicans fix it? Give everyone guns? The GINI index is increasing, making desperate people inevitable.

Twitter is broken. It's Musk's ant-farm toy now.

I've personally seen abuse of the system. It's indeed rotten in many ways, robbing unemployed citizens of IT jobs.

Too bad the New Horizons probe can't make an L-turn to go visit one of these.

There's always Lazarus, a more or less Delphi clone. Being open-source, it's harder for a greedy or incompetent vendor to yank the carpet out from under your org.

I've considered abandoning web-dev for Delphi/Lazarus. The web is a lousy fit for CRUD/GUI. React etc. are Spruce Gooses. (We need a dynamic over-http markup standard, kind of like a friendlier and XML version of QML.)

Fixing genetics bugs on a wider scale would be a medical game-changer. A good many debilitating diseases could be cured.

Dark matter is really a joint venture between God and ET to bleep with us.

Then you just get fancy regression formulas. With enough layers and "bars", epicycles "work" in terms of predictive power. It's usually better to find out the underlying mechanism rather than merely satisfy prediction. Otherwise we'd still be using epicycles. Plus, gravity theory has Occam's Razor over epicycles.

> The two teams were definitely separate and had little day to day communication with each other.

While not tightly intertwined, they studied each others' work, sometimes stealthily.

"Launch fast and break things."

Doesn't work in Australia.

The "C" family has one of the worst case/switch statements out there. When Java et. al. cloned it, they should have provided an alternative. Perhaps keep the old style for backward compatibility, but provide a new one with different key-words to avoid confusion. Example:

       select(a) {
         when 1,2,3 {...}
         when 4 {...}
         when 5,6 {...}
         otherwise {...}
       }

Flowers are relative newcomers. This is because it required a relatively tight relationship between insects and plants. Coordination between species is trickier to evolve.

You can think of Lisa as R&D, for the Mac team borrowed and reworked Lisa ideas to fit them into affordable hardware.

> State sponsored programs can move fast. Kennedy gave his "man on the moon"

By hiring private contractors and throwing lots of money at them.

My thinking is not coherent enough while asleep to run all those experiments. A few times I've asked "am I dreaming?" in dreams, but following any step-by-step process after that thought is just not in the cards. My thought patters are just as disjointed as the scenery and events "inside".

> I’ve migrated rdbms to wide column databases like Cassandra or dynamo because we had specific requirements that rdbms were not fulfilling.

I'm curious of a common situation. Could RDBMS be improved on that area, or do they inherently lack some necessary property?

I will agree that current RDBMS tend to lack dynamism, and that should be remedied: https://www.reddit.com/r/CRUDology/comments/12ari2l/dynamic_...

Much of the world and even individual economies are becoming "winner take all" due to variations on the network effect: everyone goes there because everyone else goes there.

China became the world's factory by having lots of manufacturing expertise in one spot such that few others could compete. The US lacks certain kinds of tooling, parts, and factory expertise, jacking up costs above China's. (The Chinese gov't initially subsidized their factories.)

The "winners" are convinced they are geniuses, when in fact they were just slightly ahead of the pack or slightly luckier and surfed on the network effect snowball.

GPT4 already obsolete? Geez, we got the wrong bot, silly heads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdRMVhlNP5I

Most countries don't tolerate hate speech where the poster(s) implies a particular group is evil and/or out to ruin civilization or "flush our wonderful culture" or similar. It's not even necessary, as you can say "I'm bothered by somebody doing X because such and such reasons...". Contrast with "Group A does X, and causes big problems because...".

Germany ended up in the middle of a nasty war due to such hate speech.

MTG going around calling everyone "pedos" is disgusting from a law-maker. Maxine Waters is also known to be inflammatory. And I won't even get into the tinted person here.

       x = foo01();
       y = foo02(x);
       z = foo03(x, y);

Contrast with:

       foo03(foo01(), foo02(foo01()) );

x, y, and z were named by humans, giving them domain meaning, whereas a debugger would give the second one no name or machine-made names for intermediate state. (Here, z, y, and z have no meaning because it's a foo-bar example, but in practice they'd have better names.)

The first is also often easier to read than the second, at least to my eyes. I know devs who can read the second quickly, but I don't think it's the norm. The LINQ "dot style" can be a little easier to read, but has similar problems.

A good many times the customer doesn't spot important issues until they see it in a UI, preferably interactive. The design process is done best with a combination of formal written requirements and mockups/demos.

I found a lot of holes in the justification. The scenarios make a lot of questionable assumptions about how the future will change. I'll see if I can find a certain critique that used to be floating around the web...

I'm not sure I'd agree. A lot of the use-cases are for niches or systems programming. I don't see it for business CRUD that often unless either the framework forces it on one, or they are using LINQ, which as I pointed out, can be tricky to debug if long. SQL is largely functional, but it's also hard to debug. The addition of the WITH clause to SQL greatly helped, as one can paste sections to test. Still, not as x-ray-able as imperative. Imperative still wins most x-ray contests. Maybe fast code readers don't need debugging as often? Could be, but I'm average at it.

In theory. Practice has proven messier to many. Maybe some have a "functional mind", but they shouldn't extrapolate their head to others. Functional has been around for 60+ years. If it were the magical productivity and Lego-modularity golden hammer, it would have mainstreamed already. (Long LINQ is also hard to debug for many of us.)

Modern HTML browsers have become Swiss Army Spaghetti. Perhaps we need to split the standard into smaller components so one size doesn't have to fit all. I suggest at least 3 sub-standards:

A) Document-oriented standard. Perhaps HTML standards are "good enough" for this?

B) Media/Art/Gaming.

C) Business & Data CRUD/GUI

(And don't link that XKCD cartoon about 15 standards. There are zero for these categories.)