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

I don't understand how no language has really figured out dependencies in a way that is truly sharable. It seems like docker is the only way to create applications that can be build and run everywhere without headache.

Agreed. However containers make maintenance much more difficult. A year after a container was deployed, it needs an update. And then you discover there are a set of deprecated libraries that need updating. It can get messy. Not sure any solution is perfect.

> but when pushing to git it would get transpiled to the most common subset.

What about the other direction? I don't think it will be very useful to not be able to read the exact code you wrote after the fact. Feels like writing a book but every sentence you enter is instantly rephrased by ChatGPT to sound more convoluted.


I was assuming that each contributor would have their custom rules on what the code looks in their editors. I agree that we should have a different solution so everyone reads the exact code they wrote in the style and format they wrote it...; Scratch all that, the more I think about it that sounds like a very bad idea, what about pair programming, collaboration, being able to talk about some parts of the code or it's design? Back to Go and Rust for me :)


computer science has dblp.org which indexes all the relevant journals.


Not only on HN. Trying to publish a scientific article that does not contain the word 'novel' has become almost impossible. No one is trying to reproduce anyones claims anymore.


I don't think this is about replication, but even just about the initial test in the first place. In science we do often test obvious things. For example, I was a theoretical quantum physicist, and a lot of the time I knew that what I am working on will definitely work, since the maths checks out. In some sense that makes it kinda obvious, but we test it anyway.

The issue is that even that kinda obviousness is criticised here. People get mad at the idea of doing experiments when we already expect a result.


Do you think this bias is part of the replication crisis in science?


> I would love to hear if anyone can think of any one thing nearly as useful in so many ways.

What about a computer? If you make the argument that it is a composite of many different elements, so is a deck of cards.


The issue with these "ghost chess" implementations are always the same things

1. How do captured pieces get removed? 2. How to handle pieces that move through other pieces (knights, castling)? 3. How to promote a pawn?

I have never seen these solved in something that is not awkward and neither seems to be the case here.


1. I see what you mean. Without a dual gantry it'd first move the taken piece off of the board and abandon it, then move the capturing piece. The meantime'd be awkward. Perhaps he could move the piece to the corner of the current square, move the capturing piece in, then move the captured piece off the board. That'd be slow and tedious to watch. So. No great solution, which was your point I think.

2. Personally I thought this implementation demonstrated this pretty reasonably both with castling and with moving the knight. He kinda "cheats" in that his squares are pretty large compared to the pieces, so the jumping piece can just travel /between/ ranks and files. Seems pretty nice to me.


Anyone interested in more recent examples, look up the binaural versions of some of Jean-Michel Jarre's albums.

Most of his music is very experimental but I recommend "Zero Gravity" from "Live in Notre Dame - Binaural headphone mix". It is a straight forward EDM track.


It is in the article that the screenshots are from RustRover, so the argument is that other IDEs should also implement this feature.


The author also worked at jet brains for a decent period of time


Having insects in there feels a bit odd to me. Not exactly relatable.


Disable "Search for text when you start typing" in the settings.

This 'feature' is so infuriating, as many websites have shortcuts that become unusable from this. There is nothing wrong with CTRL + F total idiotic feature to have on by default.


Coming from the other side, an annoying number of websites use '/' to focus their own search box, while I am used to using it to activate quick-search, which it's bound to by default. It's like the ctrl-f search, but disappears when it loses focus.


Thanks :)


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

Search: