Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | weareconvo's comments login

FYI: As of the time of this reply, https://dixonary.co.uk/cabal-2020 returns a 404.


Yeah, sorry, my website got nuked from orbit. Hopefully it'll be back up tomorrow.


Every single question of that form is impossible to answer with mere words. Luckily, people CAN answer it through aggregate choice, so we don't have to worry about it.

...but since I feel like taking the bait, something like 9 trillion people use Facebook for at least 36 hours a day, while at MOST 4 people ever even need to consult a neurosurgeon per YEAR. So he's clearly the winner there.


I think there is a different way of looking at it: how replaceable is he and what he has built?

The truth is -- most of Facebook's value comes from network effects, not the actual technology itself. If Mark Zuckerberg never existed, it is highly likely some other platform would have been created -- the knowledge and skillset he has is not that rare. many other platforms existed before Facebook to let you post pictures and chat with friends.


Come to Homer's BBBQ. The extra B is for BYOBB.


True, but there may also be a national interest in him not being in charge anymore.


And then displayed them in the worst way you could think of? Why does it instantly produce two-way scrolling? How do you even advance to the next slide? Why does Facebook's pitch deck have three pitch decks and an ad for the site I'm already on?


I don't get two-way scrolling here, and there's very obvious orange "First, previous, next, last" buttons under each slide.

Imagine being so entitled that you get this annoyed by something you were given for free and can close at any time.


Now apologize for spamming my inbox without an unsubscribe link.


...also, the existing frameworks are either unmaintained or god-awful (I'm lookin' at you, web development community).


I'm talking about popular frameworks like Django and Rails. Quite the opposite.


Or to put it mathematically, the optimal amount of exploration time in this explore/exploit problem is far less than you might think.


I can't put my finger on it, but this seems less like a helpful incremental improvement and more like sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Like it's obviously bad to only write code that you've seen other people write in circumstances you can recognize as similar, and it's bad to only write code nobody has ever written in history, and this just barely crosses the line.


Your argument here seems to be that even if the majority of programmers find Lisp and all its derivatives to be difficult to read, we're wrong.


No, it's more of a No True Scotsman. People have written DSLs that are unreadable, but those DSLs weren't Well Designed(TM). So their failures don't count against DSLs, because only well designed DSLs count.

I think empirical evidence is that DSLs are easy to make not readable, especially as they evolve. Then again, that's true of almost everything, including assembly language programming, structured programming, object oriented programming, and functional programming (did I miss anything?).


I was talking about the well designed DSLs. This should include a decent syntax.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: