Show newer

I would like to put a blog on web3. Can it be done reasonably? That is, does web3 break "hyper linking" that is a core part of internet philosophy?

Whoa. I just made my twice-yearly visit to LinkedIn and did a little browsing. I was overcome by the feeling, "this is Facebook!" and now I feel I need another shower.

RT @htmleverything
Guess the word is out.

All web developers that know HTML are now 'hakers'. 😂

RT @MacbethIII
Cool is now in assess mode in Thoughtworks Technology Radar.
Time to use it now.. ;-)
thoughtworks.com/radar/platfor

This is a terrific post that describes why functional programming feels so much more satisfying to learn than imperative programming. Realizing I can use (map) and (reduce), for example, feels so much more valuable than learning how to use that PDF Factory class with its inheritance hierarchy and overloaded interface specifications. Yeah, I'll be teaching that to my children.

I'm happy with ClojureScript since using <p! is as convenient as using await in JS.

https://github.com/filipesilva/async-interop

#clojure

@valerauko Clojure itself should count as "non-trivial", and they use it there.

One step is to be careful with semantic versioning, which implies breaking changes as a built-in assumption.

Non-breaking versioning has been very usefully demonstrated in high-usage Clojure projects like Figwheel, HoneySQL, Clojure JDBC, and others.

This will be harder if your codebase is a monolithic system of some kind, where there are many coupled parts. But this is a problem of the design more than a critique on [un]breakability itself.

@valerauko Clojure itself should count as "non-trivial", and they use it there.

One step is to be careful with semantic versioning, which implies breaking changes as a built-in assumption.

Non-breaking versioning has been very usefully demonstrated in high-usage Clojure projects like Figwheel, HoneySQL, Clojure JDBC, and others.

This will be harder if your codebase is a monolithic system of some kind, where there are many coupled parts. But this is a problem of the design more than a critique on [un]breakability itself.

"GitHub Copilot, the technology that will replace programmers. Also GitHub Copilot..."

submitted by themightydud

@valerauko I'm actually a big fan of both. The "don't break things" philosophy is related to the proper use of namespaces, and isn't actually that hard to pull off as a developer. Treat your codebase itself as immutable like you treat your data structures. A simple extension of the logic.

Why is it that the more I research the decentralized web, the more things seem to center on Etherium?

Very interesting exploration of non-Git* solutions. I particularly liked his point warning of vendor lock-in.

sumnerevans.com/posts/technolo

RT @mquinsland
A frightening reminder of early programming courses.

RT @grhmc
GitHub is so breathtakingly anticompetitive when you consider the integration of Dependabot, GitHub Actions, and other infrastructure and integration nobody else is allowed to even get close to providing.

Show older
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.