__sdegutis

> I'm unable to form long-term bonds with other professionals, though. I view colleagues from a more utilitarian point of view, only there to help us carry out the work, that serves a practical need for me, but not necessary for my personal company.

That's probably what all this is stemming from. Look at your colleagues and coworkers as people, just trying to make a living like you are. You don't need to go to bars with them, but showing a genuine interest in how they're doing in the morning when you both get into work can go a long way. At the end of the day, we're all just people trying to get by. If you have that friendly acquaintanceship then it will be rewarding in its own right for both of you, but could also lead to jobs in the future, not that this should be the reason for it, because like you said, then it would be disingenuous.

Sometimes all it takes is just emailing a former coworker to say hi and ask what's new, and let them know you're in the market. I think a lot of us are worried about being too intrusive, but I personally would have always been glad to get an email like this from anyone I've ever worked with in the past. So it seems like maybe we're worrying over nothing when we hesitate to reach out and just say hi in a friendly email.

That sounds like a failure of a language to me. When you have to create long ugly hacks to work around the language's limitations, then it's not working for you but against you. I've been writing in Objective-C ever since abandoning Swift 2 and so far I've only really ever heard people say they're having this or that major difficulty with Swift, so it makes me feel like it was the right thing to do to avoid getting heavily invested in Swift.

It sounds closer to Haskell to me. ADTs are very similar to associated values that Swift has, although I think they're on a slightly higher type level. I haven't found Haskell too unreadable but that's probably because it ditched C-style syntax whereas Swift stuck with it. Maybe it's a trade-off worth making though, since sticking with familiar syntax lowers the bar.

It's a bit strange that this is a .ps file, which Chrome didn't natively turn into a PDF for me. So I converted it to a PDF and hosted it at https://sdegutis.com/ll.pdf for anyone's convenience.

Thanks, this is pretty interesting to read through, and your comments are very helpful. I didn't realize this language has no comment syntax, but I guess it makes sense since each opcode probably has a fixed number of parameters and anything after that can be safely assumed to be comments. Neat stuff.

This is fascinating, I didn't know there was a such thing as a high level assembly language, but IBM High Level Assembler has IF/ELSE/ENDIF, and several types of built in loops. I wonder how similar it is to writing in C. One thing this page doesn't mention is structured data types, I suppose these would still have to be implicit like in other assembly languages.

I've been online for 20 years, and AFAIK was pretty common, although a few years ago I came across AFAICT which was pretty easy to extrapolate as ending with "can tell". From that I was able to recognize the pattern here and pretty quickly got "understand it" for UI. I think it's pretty neat that we're able to adapt language in this way, though obviously not foolproof or universal.