My mental model of a website that replaces the content with some 'sign up now' stuff while I'm trying to read it is that it deserves to get closed and never looked-at again.
Readit NewsTOGoS commented on Mental Models (2018) fs.blog/mental-models/... · Posted by u/hahahacorn
http://www.nuke24.net/
Most interesting pages are probably `music/` and `plog/`.
Optionally HTTPS, though some of the features don't work right due to links to files on personal servers that I haven't yet got around to the HTTPS rigamarole (they are running like 15-year-old Ubuntu and can't run Certbot; it's such a pain).
> lot of magic to make it trivial to start and they don’t scale to real projects
Ruby on Rails is probably a great counter example here though.
I have never really grokked Ruby on Rails and I passionately hate all the frameworks that try to adapt it to some other language.
That said, I suspect that Ruby on Rails itself occupies kind of a special space where the magic is acceptable because people who write Ruby are used to having very very sharp tools and have learned to wield them carefully. Give that magic to a PHP or Java programmer and there is immediately gallons of blood on the floor.
(says former Rubyist who was put off by the RoR stuff because I'm apparently more of a Haskeller at heart.)
If you look above the unorthodox library/framework distinction, I think the criticism is about birthing new (inadvertently leaky) abstraction layers with new semantics to capture the specifics of the domain. Often with either esoteric words attached to supposedly novel patterns, and/or unconventional usage of existing terminology.
The promise is to simplify and unify things but as noted, such efforts often have the opposite effects.
"Teams are struggling with properly adopting FooTech - our FooBarTool wraps it in a beautiful package and magically solves everything with a single command and one config file"
"We should template all this yaml"
> inadvertently leaky
I think this is the main problem.
I don't mind layers of abstraction when they work well and their components compose nicely. Like a well-designed programming language. These can actually be quite fun to work with.
Layers of abstraction where the boundaries between that layer and those around it are fuzzy to non-existent and where certain cases magically work and everything else is a janky mess because it was never designed to work are what give me headaches and want to throw my work laptop out the window on a regular basis.
TOGoS commented on I'm returning my Framework 16 yorickpeterse.com/article... · Posted by u/YorickPeterse
I'd return my Framework laptop if that was still an option. First they sent me bad RAM, and left me on my own to sort it out with Crucial, which never went anywhere. The mainboard has some weird power issue that prevents the modular ports, which are otherwise a cool idea, from working properly, and I went back and forth with support about that for two years before they finally told me it was out of warranty so I was SoL.
Then there's the screen that falls backwards.
Should've bought an old Thinkpad, instead.
> I thought this would bring some space savings, because files that are not binary code should be largely the same.
Those ternary blobs tend to be cross-platform, I hear.
Fair point.
This sounds _fascinating_ have you posted your code or written this up in a math journal? Link?
I don't touch polyhedrons in OpenSCAD because the logic of point placement mystifies me --- a tool such as you describe would make life a lot easier for a lot of folks, esp. if there was a way to use it to import a series of SVG files which could be used to define the points interactively.
I sometimes wonder if the key to future computer usage would be a series of Domain Specific Languages each intended for a given task:
- 3D == OpenSCAD
- 2D == METAPOST
- SQL == databases
- TeX == text/page composition
- sed == text
(and yes, I know this is the Unix ideal)
but such languages seem to be most successful and most approachable to typical users when they are paired with a front-end which affords editing, previewing, and, direct interaction.
I'm actually nuking my Python install right now, because I got it into a state where I couldn't get Fullcontrol G-code to run, so I agree that the state of Python package population is pitiful, hence of course, the XKCD:
An example of an OpenSCAD design written this way: https://github.com/TOGoS/OpenSCADDesigns/blob/master/2023/ex...
I wrote about the approach a little bit in this Reddit post: https://www.reddit.com/r/openscad/comments/186b54r/interpret...
The interpreter itself is just a single module: https://github.com/TOGoS/OpenSCADDesigns/blob/master/2023/li...
The great thing about OpenSCAD is that it makes it easy to 3D model things which may be described using spheres, cylinders, and cubes which are stretch, and/or rotated, and arranged in 3D space.
The awful thing about OpenSCAD is that what one can model in 3D is limited by one's ability to mathematically stretch, rotate, and/or arrange spheres, cylinders, and cubes in 3D.
For folks who want "real" (read mutable in normal terms of scope) variables there is a Python-enabled fork (which should become part of the main release presently:
> The awful thing about OpenSCAD is that what one can model in 3D is limited by one's ability to mathematically stretch, rotate, and/or arrange spheres, cylinders, and cubes in 3D.
Not at all. You can build any polyhedron you want using the polyhedron command.
Which would be an enormous pain to write out by hand every time, but I wrote a function once upon a time to generate a polyhedron from a stack of layers, each of which is a list of points, and haven't had to mess with old cubes and spheres since.
One annoying thing is that the default way of writing programs in OpenSCAD uses 'modules', which are a bit limited compared to functions (you can't store them as values to to functions or other modules). I worked around that by writing a module that interprets arrays (think S-expressions) that representing the shape, and then just build up that S-expression-like thing with functions and whatever.
Once you've built your own programming language inside OpenSCAD it's perfectly usable. :-)
This might sound like sarcasm but I actually do prefer this to dealing with Python's mutable state jungle / package management nightmare.
If the community followed the author's guidance, we would have names like "Generic LLM wrapper 690" ("GLW690" if following the early programming language conventions.) or "Github clone with a different ideology 11"
Maybe, and I would definitely prefer this to the random-generic-word practice. "illuminate" is some part of Laravel, but I can't remember what it is, just that "that's not even a noun; they just picked that word for $whatever_crappy_subsystem because it sounds nice" and being even more annoyed at the whole thing because of it.
1900s MPEG compression was pretty intense.