Been fortunate to get to try out Sculptor in pre-release - it's great. Like claude code with task parallelism and history built in, all with a clean UI.
Readit Newslrobinovitch commented on Show HN: Sculptor – A UI for Claude Code imbue.com/sculptor/... · Posted by u/thejash
lrobinovitch commented on The Hacker Folk Art of Esoteric Coding thereader.mitpress.mit.ed... · Posted by u/sohkamyung
Also linked in the article, https://esolangs.org is worth a read if this is up your alley
lrobinovitch commented on Python developers are embracing type hints pyrefly.org/blog/why-type... · Posted by u/ocamoss
I worked on a project that did this. Drove me absolutely nuts. It's like having all the worst parts of a dynamic language and a static language with none of the benefits.
I'd much rather just work in a statically typed language from the start.
What exactly drove you nuts? The python ecosystem is very broad and useful, so it might be suitable for the application (if not, reasonable that you'd be frustrated). With strict mypy/pyright settings and an internal type-everything culture, Python feels statically typed IME.
the heuristic is 'if you know about rerere and especially if you use it, you should try jj'. if you never force push, you might not see value in jj. (I basically always force push.)
That makes sense, good to know, thanks.
> I basically always force push
How do your colleagues deal with this, or is this mostly on experimental branches or individual projects?
Say you start on Main, then make a new branch that you intend to be a PR someday. You make commit 1. Then another. Maybe 6 more. Now you realize that something in commit 1 should have been done differently. So, you "edit" commit 1. All the other commits automatically rebase on top and when you go back to your last commit, it's there. Same with _after_ you PR and someone notices something in commit 3. Edit it, push, and it's fixed.
You can do all that in Git, but I sure as hell never did; and my co-workers really appreciate PRs that are broken into lots of little commits that can be easily looked over, one by one.
You have to force push each time you do this, right? How do your coworkers find the incremental change you made to commit 1 after you force push it, and how do you deal with collaborative branches effectively this way? And if I don't want to work this way and force push, are there other benefits of jj?
Ha, I made something in the same vein a few years ago: https://colorcontroversy.com/
Those who spend their time flying through imaginary worlds do well to "remember where the off switch is" to quote Ian Banks' "Excession". It's also helpful to characterize a person not just by their character, tenacity or energy, or age, but also a number between 0 and 1 that indicates how much of their time they've spent in the real world, vs in their happy fun space. Call it the "imagination factor". A bright, capable mind of 40 with an imagination factor of .75 may only have the cumulative real-world experience of a 10-year-old.
It's unclear to me what you're defining as real. Coal mining? Childcare? Community centers? Through hiking? Interesting theoretical realms can have enormous consequences in the physical/tangible world, as I'm sure you know :). Maybe it's more of a "presence factor" in relation to this story: a measure of how aware you are of the roles and responsibilities you have and how engaged with them you are.
[0]: https://github.com/geigerzaehler/beets-alternatives