muhuk

I think they should have, it does not align with their community. Could they have denied, I am not sure about the legalities.

Money is good. But not antagonizing your community (as an open source project) is better.

Yes. It is the worst possible match right now.

There will be community backlash. And it will not be uncalled for. Sad news.

Also `ycombbinator/-co`

The divide is so big now, this will not work the way they think it will work. Politics is no more "a matter of opinion" now, it is more like "to be or not to be".

The only way they can make this work is to replace the wrongthinkers with agreeable employees.

None of the `toonified` images shown on the page looks like the person in the photo.

OTOH I could immediately guess if you've shown me one of these photos: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=leonardo+di+caprio+toon&iax=images...

Strange. I checked again and it works.

Best of both worlds is to design top-down and build bottom-up. By design I don't mean something abstract, it should be translated into code sooner rather than later.

From one Blender user to another; learning curve is not really steep compared to 3DS and Maya. Not noticeably steeper at least.

    This is not going to be one of these catchy titles, 
    so “what kind of bs am I going to read here” has 
    little use in this place. Actually, this is 100% 
    true that contributing to the open source community
    might greatly affect your life

How to say one thing and communicate the exact opposite.

Why can't so easy for you that you can lose yourself in it fall within neither too easy or too hard range?

I wanted to give you an answer and started following down the call trail:

    https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/clj/clojure/core.clj#L75
    https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/RT.java#L661
    https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/PersistentTreeSet.java#L51
    https://github.com/clojure/clojure/blob/master/src/jvm/clojure/lang/RT.java#L667

Then I gave up. I am curious too. Where I left off, we had a Cons cell. And I am hoping it will get converted to a set later (via empty).

Are you using com.jakemccrary/lein-test-refresh? Tests run really fast after the first time.

How do you build the documentation? I can see files in the docs dir turn into http://www.chartjs.org/docs/. But I couldn't find any npm plugin etc.

But does it allow specifying vectors that has no less than three and no more than seven items? Or vectors with even number of items?

More importantly can we possibly implement church numerals in Haskell? /rhetorical

Perhaps it was an advanced defense measure against searches, since it was funded by a defence agency. \s

It will probably never get as popular as the generic term blog, so it will be difficult to search "how to do X in blog?", so it will probably never get as popular...

Perhaps they consider renaming it as bayelog or something.

Management will inevitably and naturally gravitate towards full supporting v1 and only maybe half support v2.

Initially v1 is better because it is here and it works.

Later on, when v1 becomes a bigger mess with just a few critical additions, v2 will be worse because: v1 was supposed to have the faster development rate, right? Now we can't afford v2.

Management's initial love for v1's speed of delivery will make it impossible for v2 to actually deliver anything useful (with comparison to v1's current feature set.)

I find this v1/v2 idea ridiculous. I also find the idea of v1 programmers vs v2 programmers too apologetic. There are cowboy coders who write spaghetti code and are damaging to well functioning teams. And then there are real professionals with varying degrees of meticulousness. But real pros always end up defending and building v2 software.

That doesn't mean spike experiments and prototypes are bad. It is just that you don't present them to a management who's likely to try to promote them to production status. Good management would recognize prototypes as prototypes and demand production quality code for production.

I guess my point is; there are no v1 or v2 programmers, there are v1 or v2 companies/managers.

Fire Mary. Communicate reasonable constraints with Melissa and stay out of her way. She doesn't need your mentoring.

TL;DR: Keep learning.

I think it's because IntelliJ has a greater cool factor. Exact same thing happens with Apple. Apple customers, say macbook users, complain about the high prices, subpar hardware, iTunes and other software issues in private. But then the same people can brag about their macbook in a different context. Eclipse is just not as cool as IntelliJ. But it gets the work done. And has more capabilities, and is open source, etc. etc. Yet, Eclipse is not cool. So we see an eagerness to point at its weak points.

My personal comparison:

Once you have the right plugins it's super easy to create a scala project with maven in Eclipse. I had to download scala sources and tell IntelliJ their location, still it didn't work. Forget about maven. (I'm sure IntelliJ gurus can set it up, my point is it's not easy for n00bs)

I gave up on core.typed because I've found adding type annotations to most of the forms is significantly harder compared to a statically typed language. (In hindsight this is obvious, I know.)

Not having type-checking doesn't necessarily make Clojure any less awesome for me though. I write unit tests, add (some form of) contracts at least to the public functions and pay attention to documenting public stuff. And not doing excessively clever things like having unnecessary mini-DSL's within the code also help.

Shouldn't he have done proper presidenting to make sure this didn't happen? I see only PR here.

Noticed that obscure death threat in the beginning? I'm not surprised to see it in a post about licenses.

Make sure you move the camera (click-and-drag) and the objects in the scene (click to select then drag the bounding box).

Or this:

    class Window(object):
        def __init__(self, minimum, maximum):
            self.minimum = min(minimum, maximum)
            self.maximum = max(minimum, maximum)

Why set attributes twice? AFAIAC you only need to write "self." once for each attribute in the constructor.

Because they improve maintainability, they are not redundant.