jneen

I mean, it has to be asked... was the source of chardet not in the training set...?

I've had my job offshored in the past, in case a personal anecdote is relevant here.

Yeah, it's basically a toolkit for building jitted languages. Basically the easiest way to get a tracing jit these days. So it'll be a self-hosting jit similar to pypy or pixie.

Yeah, it was a difficult decision to remove types - I'd gotten myself into a corner trying to tack on dependent types, and it just wasn't happening. My bet is that unlike most of the un{i,}typed languages out there (most of which I'd categorize as lisps and smalltalks), tulip provides tagging and destructuring that allows the programmer to maintain some level of control over the polymorphism. Tulip will panic at runtime for non-total functions, but ideally you'll have the tools necessary to keep the panic as close to the problem as possible.

um, it's a flower

Exactly! This is what the @method / @impl system is for - it's about equivalent to clojure's defprotocol. Future plans include named protocols consisting of multiple methods, and protocol-based matching.

Argh, thanks for the cache link. I'm still on heroku free-tier :\

Yep, it's my opinion, and that's why I put it into the design. Lots of language design comes from opinions. I hope it's borne out. FWIW it's the same approach Rust has taken, where macros have to end with a ! to make them visually distinct.

Yep! It focuses more on dynamic type-checks than on static typing though, so I put it in the category of "untyped functional" - more like clojure and erlang than haskell or ml.

It was a decision I made, partly because I realized they were right, and partly because I think tulips are pretty.

     ) (
    (  _)
      |/

See, I actually know it has to do with gender because I used to have a beard. I got treated very differently back then.

As someone who has tried to document and report shitty behavior, it's important to keep in mind how risky that is.

Here are a few patterns I've observed:

pattern (a) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: hey please stop; WOMAN's performance review: "has conflicts with MAN"

pattern (b) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: reports shitty thing; MANAGER: oh MAN is a nice guy, why don't you try working it out yourself

pattern (c) MAN: does shitty thing; WOMAN: does nothing because she actually reports to MAN

I have heard most of these things, and it sucks. This is hella real.

If he is, it's pretty tame compared to the treatment of those who criticize him, and those who claim to support those who criticize him.