Thank you for posting this. Fine work. I need to give it another read later, but for now, I find Thomas' iambs a little heavyweight. Every line has the same 4x(ba-DUM, ba-DUM) rhythm, with almost no variety. Frost has a lighter touch with meter.
I personally don't see having the version in the package address particularly more nasty than specifying it in the project file, as in Maven, which I have been dealing with lately. One problem I imagine is that when migrating to a new version of a library, the address has to be updated in each file the library is used in, with potentially catastrophic consequences if any one file is forgotten. A grep seems wise in that case.
Would you argue that there are more robust solutions in the Haskell ecosystem? What scheme do you prefer?
I don't think the issue was with specifying the version in the package address. It is that you need to use a 3rd party, remote service, to redirect your requests to the appropriate git repo and branch.
This is because Go doesn't support specifying branches/tags itself when specifying a git dependency.
This workaround is contingent on gopkg.in people keeping their service maintained and running. If they went down, all your dependencies would break.
> Is it hard essentially, or is it hard accidentally?
Not exactly either, but certainly a bit of both. Programming is hard primarily because it is so poorly understood. The entire field is in its infancy. Comparing it to art, I'm pretty sure we haven't even reached the "stick figures scrawled on a cave wall" stage yet. As Alan Kay pointed out we sure didn't invent an arch yet: http://squab.no-ip.com/collab/uploads/61/IsSoftwareEngineeri...
It's nice to see the Eve team trying to do something at least slightly different from the same-old, same-old. Even if it looks a lot like some horrors of yore (FoxPro) when I squint.
Rising High School Senior. FIRST robots is the program. 6 Years on the HS team (she was allowed on in Middle School). Wants to be a Mechanical Engr. with a 2nd degree in CS. Makes her Dad proud. She also is a lobbyist for disadvantaged youth for CS and STEM opportunity.
I think a few years ago they had a section outlining all the polite British euphemisms that are employed in writing unflattering obituaries yet avoiding the libel lawyers (describing a philanderer, drunkard, closet homosexual, etc. in so many words recognizable to all yet not exposing undue liability)
Reminds me of when Watson expesses sudden outrage at his newspaper description of himself as a 'confirmed bachelor' on the Sherlock TV show I bent over double laughing, utterly mystifying my friends.
Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's.
I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality.
The Economist is a highly biased newspaper. Unlike nearly all other publications aspiring to high-brow status, it displays its biases openly.
My main complaint with the Economist (as a subscriber) is that it doesn't display it's biases openly - it often presents controversial economic or social positions as settled fact in a neutral style. If you didn't know the subject it was writing on you would think they were presenting the orthodox position.
If you didn't catch The Economist's biases on a cursory reading of one issue, that's on you. Simply skimming one of the leader opinion pieces and comparing it to, e.g., a Krugman column, should tell you that the authors would come to blows.
I'm not talking about their overall world view I'm talking about their "Coffee growing in Guatamala" or "Cement production in the far east" articles - the ones where they are providing information on a relatively obscure subject. The articles present very matter of fact tones when in reality they are often reporting on one side of genuinely contraversial issues.
>>Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's.
May I enquire as to your stance on the corn laws?
>>it displays its biases openly.
Nope. It claims to speak from the perspective of economists but instead is pushing a panglosian, unilateral free trade agenda. The world view has many internal contradictions (OP notes their treatment of good and evil countries, China is for some reason in the good category despite working hard to disrupt US hegemony while other countries that verbally protest are labeled evil), I can only assume they have sinister motives or are mentally retarded. Much like Fox News.
> It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view.
There, you just described the economist.
Okay, jokes apart... My 'problem' is that most mainstream media, doesn't consider the economist biased. I didn't consider the economist biased in the past. When I did, I stopped my subscription because it had nothing to offer: I knew beforehand what am I going to read on (almost) any given situation.
On the subject of IRC: it wasn't fading all that strongly, IMO, at least for open-source and free software discussions. Then Slack came along. Startling to see a proprietary clone of IRC (albeit with some nice extra features, namely history) come along and start taking over. See, e.g., the Clojurians Slack community.
It's also got basic wiki type stuff, and some other features.
IRC is like USENET: It has barely evolved for decades, nobody can profit by improving the protocol as it's a commons, so it just stagnates and dies out.
Eventually all the decentralised protocols that were born in the early days of the internet will be gone.
The IRC protocol is in a different situation to USENET, because the latter has many different independent, individually federated networks of servers, whereas the latter has just one.
This means that server-side innovations can and do happen - they just need to respect the basic server-client protocol. Often the newer features are delivered through "services", which means they're in-band signalled.
Not entirely. Team control is a major part of it for companies, and history makes a huge difference to the experience. Slack servers allow the use of IRC clients, but I gave up on Colloquy almost immediately after seeing the benefits of history. For the right teams, the IRC+history combo can almost completely eliminate email use.
Also, Slack bought a company which did voice, video, and screen sharing. Since join.me went downhill, this will be a welcome addition to Slack.
