1,418 karma · joined December 17, 2022
That being said, there is an objective way out of this trap emdash check out Dave Farley's work on Modern Software Engineering [1].
It is a very clever approach to convert the process of software delivery into a software problem itself, with a minimal criteria of shipping new code safely every 24 hours.
When your "pure" engineers optimize around that, the distinction between your "pure" and "practical" devs tends to be pretty small.
> Neomantra is a financial technology company focused on electronic trading.
Somehow this is not what I was expecting when investigating. For... research purposes.
My issue with APL is I was never able to turn the corner to "generic problem solving" in APL (or other array langs). It feels like learning written Chinese, like 50,000 individual techniques but if you know them you can do incredible things quickly. For the problems I know how to solve, I can solve them quickly. And you CAN do amazing things with inner products in APL.
On the other hand, studying APL, even if you don't master it, is not without benefits. LLM transformer architecture and GraphBLAS algorithms are junior APL level implementation problems (at least conceptually, operationalizing them is a different story).
Adam Brudzewski has one of the most criminally underrated YouTube channels[2]. It would be great to solve problems that elegantly in any language, and Adam has always been very friendly in answering questions if you ever get a chance to speak with him. I just seem to be a lost cause lol.
sweet mercy :O
Someone call the Inquisition
Hard to brush that one off!
[that was brilliant, you missed your calling. I am completely enamled :D]
Also Erlang uses RPCs for pretty much all "synchronous" interactions but it's pretty minimal in terms of ceremony. Seems pretty reliable.
So this is a serious question because hand rolling "40 years" of best practices seems hard, what should we be using for RPC?
Is this you also or total coincidence?
For the record, I would be more inclined to be sympathetic towards the author if any receipts (i.e., repos) were produced at all, but as you so correctly stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I agree you do not have burden of defending the author's claims, apologies if that was not clear.
A rhetorical technique as old as dirt, but apparently still effective.
I call bullshit. Let's see some repos.
I do my best to use vanilla CSS, BEM style, with SCSS preprocessing, but it's not incredibly intuitive, it's apparently hard for most "full stack" devs to do because they think it is beneath them so they will reach for something like MaterialUI.
I agree with the criticisms about tailwind and Daisy but the problem these seem to solve that vanilla CSS does not is that Tailwind for all of its quirks requires less internal agreement than vanilla CSS. Without internal agreement every dev does their own crazy thing to the CSS and it turns to spaghetti fast.
So again my question is, what is my alternative here that gives me this property of "nicely packaged, well documented, modular, scalable CSS" without using Tailwind/Daisy?
Congrats for writing something that is both accessible to a wide audience and yet still meaningful to grumpy audience.
I will certainly be picking this up!
Changes. Saddest song of all time. Can't listen to it without crying. https://youtu.be/dOz_dLmpT9A
Given the current hype it probably doesn't even matter if the claim is true as long as it keeps the capital flowing.