skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
I mean, yes, the biggest win of lisp over other languages is that the metalanguage is the language. That is what is special about lisp. That is, when defining a macro, you are simply treating the program itself as data. Since code and data take the same form, this is a really natural way to metaprogram. In most other languages, it is... not.

Now, the featured article picks a... not very good example, for this feature of the language. But that doesn't mean that metaprogramming is useless. Much of a (big) lisp program is building up a domain specific language out of macros, then solving the problem at hand with it. This is the biggest power of lisp, and also the biggest weakness--every lisp program is written in a different language.

In lisp you express your problem in macros, and then express your solution in the language you've built up.
I'm learning clojure, and find it has a certain elegance, but I don't fully "get it" yet.
Certainly not as much as Groupon
At the same time, you know that someone (the venue, the promoter, our the tour manager) is cutting corners when actual insightful communication isn't happening between all parties. Just as the tour will send a contract to the venue, the venue sends it's contract and technical specifications to the tour. The tone and types of communication with a venue or tour before they even get two cities away is just as good an indicator towards the likelihood of problems.

Nothing, not even brown M&Ms can make it so all of a sudden we don't need to communicate through the proper channels and follow procedures.
The confusing part is (here in the states), all the kids do actually learn the Metric system in their grade school science classes, starting in elementary school (primary, I think they call it elsewhere). Everyone I know knows the Metric system, but they give me queer looks when I use it, e.g. in conversation. Not like it's insulting their American-ness or something either; I really don't get it. It's worst with temperature, where people have to fight their training to estimate the temperature in Fahrenheit.
> In Lisp I get a feeling that nothing was done since '58.
<snip an ignorant rant about macros>

Well, macros for one didn't exist in Lisp in 1958.
"Does this still work? Federal corporate tax law has closed this loophole, so this tax model is no longer useful for federal level taxation."

So individuals, corps, no one's really going to get away with this who isn't already.
I also like Larry Wall's "Waterbed theory of complexity" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterbed_theory) which fundamentally says complexity needs to be handled at layer or the other in a system.

Which primarily brings the eternally asking the question of "Using the right tools" for the job. Apart from knowing all the CS know-how behind how things work. Practical software is all about knowing if there are existing off the shelf solutions that can be just plugged into take care of that part of the complexity.

I think innovation is more than just code, its also about how you can go about solving a particular business problem in the most practical way.

I think in MIT lecture series of Structure and Interpretation of computer programs, the instructor bring about a very point. Its something like this "A part of understanding and building large complex systems is to know what parts to neglect".

We often test people with knowing about the granular details. But we never see if they know how to build powerful abstractions. Which is basically the core any large complex system.
You might be being downvoted because:

Even if you are right (that they might just implement the easy ones), you don't actually lose anything by adding the clause. At worse case, you're as bad off as if you didn't have it. Not exactly a "counter-argument" since you don't actually lose anything.

As for why not just pick something else...It's hard to tell without the full list...how do you test that something can hold 600lbs? Even if there is something relatively easy, say, that sockets are X feet apart from each other...again, what's the harm in 1 additional quick check? (and if you say their reputation, I'd argue it might have helped their reputation as oppose to harm it)
Feedback Army uses Mechanical Turk. Indeed, they say on their pages that the questions a user submits must comply with MechTurk guidelines.
I suggest you to sign up on http://www.startupdigest.com/chile
to stay connected with chilean startup scene!

Disclaimer:
I'm the curator of Chile Startup Digest

@cleiva
I think it's best to keep ego out of it: The fact that it's yours has no bearing either way on whether it would be appropriate to submit it. People will appreciate good, relevant articles and they'll be turned off by mediocre or irrelevant articles. Unless you're Zed Shaw or something, your identity doesn't factor into most people's opinions.

A more relevant concern would be how honestly you can evaluate your own work. If you think everything you write is golden (i.e. you simply can't view your work critically), it's probably best to leave it to other people to submit your deathless prose. But if you just really think a particular piece would interest the community you're posting to, hey, it's worth a shot.
No, it was combative, regardless how true and factual. True and factual != polite and neutral. (Do you let every overweight person you see, know that they are fat? It's true and factual, so if they take issue with it, it's because they have a problem!?).

In fact, your response to the parent was fairly combative as well. Instead of pointing out a problem in the parents point you have instead tried to find fault in the parents character.
Both lisp(s) and smalltalk took me about 18 months of decently serious use before I had a 'I get it moment'. Stick with it and it will come.

I'm hoping that if I keep at it with Haskell, that eventually I'll have my 'I get it' moment with it as I think I can learn a ton from when I get it, much like I did with Lisp and Smalltalk.

I've learned things from many different languages but the two I've learned the most from where Lisp and Smalltalk.
From one page the author linked to [1]:

"Because coders DO NOT LIKE LISP. Most programmers find Lisp unpleasant and unnatural to use. They're not idiots, they're not ignorant, and they're not willfully choosing a less-powerful or less-efficient tool, they're choosing tools based on what makes them productive and happy."

The "profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get [functional programming]" [2] is a mystery that I've been trying to figure out, albeit slowly since the day only has 24h. I've gone through the Peepcode video on Clojure and I couldn't find an answer, and I didn't even feel attracted to the language, quite unlike my first Ruby experience.

Then the other day I watched Matz - creator of Ruby - talking about Ruby 2.0, and he used the word "happy" multiple times to explain how he wants developers to feel when using his language, and I thought of how brilliantly he's succeeded. I have now spent more time coding in Objective-C than any other language (iOS development), and every hour I code Objective-C I miss Ruby and how happy it makes me feel.

I find that happiness is highly overlooked in discussions about programming.

[1] http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.371875....

[2] http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

(edit: formatting)
Ah, "clunky" tends to be used to refer to ungainly machines, which is one reason most people reading your original post will assume you're discussing the aesthetics of the printer and not its products.

The other is of course that the title of the submission is about the printer, so using "it" without further clarification will not be read as referring to something mentioned only in the article.
Or Shriram Krishnamurthi's Automata via Macros - a beautiful little nontrivial example of Scheme macros:

http://www.cs.brown.edu/~sk/Publications/Papers/Published/sk...
I feel for the author and have recently come to a similar (read: not same) conclusion: Lisp is pretty crappy for maybe 90% of the work being done out there. The more easily-accessible and popular a domain is, the worse Lisp will be for it. This isn't because Lisp magically gets worse; it's because other languages get better, through libraries. Even if nine of ten libraries are crappy, there are enough people in the space (remember, it's a popular domain) that something good will come out of it, and eventually everyone will basically settle on a few good choices.

Lisp programmers, when using Lisp for what it's best at, don't use libraries. There are no libraries for what they want to do, because what they're doing is obscure and/or hard.

Lisp is best at doing new things that have never been done before, because it's basically a language for writing libraries. As such, it prospers in unpopular fields.*

This makes it hard for lisp evangelists to be taken seriously. If you're to show someone a hard graphics problem written in lisp vs ruby, your reader has to understand graphics programming first. But calculating primes? Anyone can do that. Which example do you think will get more mindshare?

To summarize: Lisp is great at things you don't hear about.

* One reason Viaweb succeeded using Lisp for the web was because the web was still this exciting frontier and no one had really done anything with it yet. I'd go so far as to say that Viaweb wouldn't succeed today---they'd get trashed by the likes of Weebly, which is written in php for crying out loud.
maybe we should have had van halen review the CDS contracts that nearly brought down the financial system.
No, right now we're just doing our best for the Federal Register. But we're love to help out any agency that's interested!
I do love ruby and feel that it's metaprogramming techniques to allow you to easily emulated many features of Lisp's macros.

That said the author missing an obvious thing here. They key with macros is that they allow you to alter syntax (not calculate values as many who try initially misunderstand them), and s-exps are essential to being able to do this (because they are effectively an abstract syntax tree).

I say this is obvious because the example itself demonstrates this.
The lisp code in the end looks very much like the ruby. Being able to extend syntax means that if you like ruby you can make your lisp work more like it. Now try to reverse this example, make a ruby library that emulates a lisp style, I think you'd find it much more difficult, and expensive.

The other important thing to not forget is that this syntax transformation happens at compile time. One of the reasons that Ruby has a reputation for being slow is it has to keep track of a lot of metadata and all sorts of look-ups to do a lot of the metaprogramming (which is why people should make better use of it, you've already paid for it). In Common Lisp all this transformation is free during runtime. Think of a common issue with JavaScript: no implicit return. If Lisp did not have implicit return you could define a macro 'defr' which allowed you to define functions like you normally do, but always know they return a value. Instead you need to use CoffeeScript.

Finally people do still write plenty of Common Lisp, they're just a smaller community. Not long ago I wrote myself a very practical tool to process a specific file format, with it's own mini-dsl, an order of magnitude faster than similar libraries (albeit with intentionally less functionality) and all in 200 lines of Common Lisp.
I hate to just insert a link into a comment, but this article is a much better response than anything I could come up with:

http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2005/12/03/why-ruby-is-a...
got to 3gpp.org and read up on how LTE works, many of these problems have been addressed.
Since Lisp, Smalltalk and Matz came up, I remembered what Matz said[1]:

Some may say Ruby is a bad rip-off of Lisp or Smalltalk, and I admit that. But it is nicer to ordinary people

[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/quotes.html
So thrilled for you Dan. Congrats again. Swiperoo loves your service.
That's also because (to my knowledge) that strings in Java are immutable. Same as in Ruby and a bunch of other languages.

So the optimisation that can be done is to put all of the string data into one big (immutable) array and have each string object just reference into it for its data.
Karen millen dresses
DomainPolish loves you right back. Keep in touch!
Great stuff. I'd love to see people use FPGAs to create new oddball architectures too, really weird and fun stuff and not only recreate the past.
Haha, I interviewed this guy for a position a while ago and saw his reactor and workshop. It's totally boss but it wasn't in an apartment but rather in a huge warehouse workshop space.
You can just do it yourself, typedef char* (or some other fancy array) as a string type and treat the first x bytes as a length of the string.

There's nothing stopping people from doing this temselves.
Is this the place where I admit that the fastest way to reverse an md5 hash like that is to google it?
Twitter banning them in 3... 2... 1...
Regarding security, author says "Despite 15 years of attention, over- and under-running string buffers is still a preferred attack vector for criminals, and far too often it pays off." This is same in case of "Str+Len" as well right. Malicious program can manipulate "Len" and can corrupt the program.
This "free" you speak of is something of a Faustian bargain :-)
The evolution of computer languages
Intresting about award winning houses
Are you looking for the Residential architects in michigan. Vanbrouck.com the best residential architects and award winning residential architects in michigan. For more details please visit us online.
More Government Data with the Federal Register API
Badger Sportswear
Badger sportswear has become identical with comfort, style, stability and value. The company grew significantly by offering better-quality products at great value brands. Badger Sports also has a great status for quality products in the world of athletics. There B-Cool products are made-up with one layer of fabrics Constructed to keep you cool and dry all time. At Athletic Clothing you find a huge selection of Badger sportswear including t-shirts, pants, tank tops, shorts, skirts, jackets and much more in variety of designs and colors. You can also get here a collection of Badger basketball shirts in many sizes.
I almost fit this category, except when I replace a system, I make it backwards compatible, and put [Obsolete("Please use NewClass.Method instead")] on everything...

I wonder if you would hire me...
It's worth calling out that a cubic meter of the sun's fusion reaction generates about the same power as an active compost heap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core - the huge energy output is due to the huge volume
Mobile Prices in Karachi
Pak Mobile Rates For Karachi, Lahore And Islamabad. Latest Samsung Mobile Rates, China Mobile Rates, Q Mobile Rates In Karachi Pakistan
http://www.openwall.com/john/
Also, replace with 'Singapore' and it's equally true.
I wonder if that's to make it harder to crack FairPlay.
For clarity, the above is what I considered the 'problem' and was what I learned folks who invent new stuff and about interviewing those folks on how they got to the point where they needed to come up with something from whole cloth. I am sure there are horror stories on the other side as well, with systems which haven't been changed but need to be because no one is willing to risk it.

My issue wasn't that they re-implemented the subsystem, it was that they did so without understanding all of what it originally did and so they were guaranteed to burden users of that system with a huge migration task. Folks who were previous users of the old system had to figure out what he had implemented and where their features had gone, and a series of iterative steps as folks educated this person on their particular requirements, and a series of changes, the new system was eventually a nearly complete replacement.

The opportunity cost of those developers who were rewriting their code to talk to the replacement wasn't considered, there wasn't really a solid metric for 'goodness', it had none of the old bugs but it certainly had its share of new ones, it increased the technical debt of the source code base.

So here was a brilliant engineer who did write a crap ton of code and got it working, but the path they took caused a bunch of other engineers a lot of work as well. They did not acknowledge, in any way that I could see, the burden they had imposed.

The converse, fixing a large number of problems with precise surgical changes to the code base, were not things that were being held up as the model for success. That was a sad outcome of that culture, but one I value highly both in myself and in others.

So when someone tells me they re-wrote something from scratch, I'm always curious to see how they got to that conclusion. There are many good reasons to rewrite something, whether it was a prototype that ended up being shipped and kept alive with a hodge-podge of fixes, or circumstance changes where the total code lines would be less re-doing it than amending it. I enjoy figuring out these sort of 'coral reef' architectures, emergent things that were born of the bones of a million quick fixes over the years, and I have blown up a few in my time. Sometimes the reasoning is from external sources (like a system that had inadvertently become tainted with proprietary information).
Generative avatar portraits
I would support that assumption. Been there done that, banks are not excited about touching any of their back end systems. They are mostly still written in COBOL and haven't been touched since the '70s.
Many of Amazons services are meant to be resold in such a way. Heroku, Dropbox, AppHarbor etc. They all provide varying levels of extra value.

Making it easier to access these services is extra value.
But you could just as easily set aside the first 4 bytes of a string to be the length and then it would be O(1).

But does that really matter when you're doing operations on the string that iterate over the whole string anyway? Since iterating the whole string is O(n) anyway, you're not really gaining anything.
This was fun, I wish I could've stayed longer--though I'm wondering if my voice would've taken the abuse if I had. Looking forward to next time!
I'm surprised no one has suggested refactoring yet. Joel Spolsky wrote most eloquently on resisting the urge to rewrite quite some years ago. Often the best response to a convoluted brittle looking system is to just attack it with a series of small refactorings that clearly preserve the current behavior, while eliminating unnecessary confusion and complexity until you can finally see clearly the bigger picture.
Exactly the same I think.

I have found that unless I can explain something to someone else, then I must not completely understand it. And working with another forces you to be able to communicate and explain, and that gives you both a better understanding. The result is you find things you missed.
Clothes with built-in fans
Ask HN: anyone know why Burrell Smith designed the Macintosh and not Woz?
Indeed it does. I salute your ability to endure in that kind of environment. I did that bit for several years before finally saying enough is enough. Working for a small shop is a much better fit for me.
Question for anyone: would you bother checking every question manually to make sure not to cause any trouble with Amazon? Or would you automate it, hope that the users comply and if they don't, deal with the problem then?
To meet or not to meet a VC
You may want to check out the MTurk command line tools to help automate order processing: http://aws.amazon.com/developertools/694

Never used MTurk personally, there may be better things available.
I wonder if YC was approached...would love to hear why they turned down...if they did.
And this is Amazon's fault how?
Space Shuttle Columbia Debris Found in East Texas
You should check out Chicago Public Radio's "This American Life". It's addicting and thought provoking. ;)
well, starting from 20-30KV the plasma may start radiating X-rays (bremsstrahlung).
Digital Video Production
We specializes in online marketing video, digital video production, video, animation, Flash video and we provide best services in corporate video production, online video production and more at affordable prices.
Egos and lack of skill.

It's so much easier to write from scratch than it is to refactor. So many programmers have no idea how to tackle an existing codebase, even if it's one they've wrote themselves.
Personal confession, I was stuck with the NFS lock manager in SunOS 4.0. I inherited it after it had been written by a mathematician who understood the theory of how it would work, but unfortunately could not write code, and it was then given to a person who could make anything work, even if they didn't understand how it was supposed to work.

The result was exactly as you describe, functions which had clear logical errors but they were never called so it didn't matter, data structures where a third of the members were never populated. It took me a couple of months of back and forth before I felt I could even begin to attack it. And after implementing the kernel half and starting in on the daemon proper, Sun discovered 'divisions' and I found myself documenting like crazy so that I could 'hand off' something that wasn't a 'networking' problem.

I particularly liked the n-level deadlock detection algorithm, that was the experience that taught me that a data structure can represent a large set of potential computations all at once.
上海海尔洗衣机维修
Wouldn't it be vulnerable to simple eavesdropping? SSL can be attacked via MITM, but since certificates are authenticated your browser knows when it occurs. (I still don't know quite how that works)
上海博世洗衣机维修
Very important clarification, you are quite correct.
This is a wretchedly bad infographic. It has terrible lacunae, incorrect facts, and the overall design implies a teleology that is utterly fantastic, at best.

There's a great graphic in the evolution and cross-pollination of computer languages struggling to get out; this one (http://www.levenez.com/lang/) is a lot better than the original article, although it severely lacks in aesthetic appeal and functional usability.
Patrick Bateman's New York City
I just logged in to check out this site, and Dan was there, chatting live with folks. So cool. Go Dan Go! You got a customer in me... and I'll be back tomorrow with an order.
well, if it's a language for writing libraries - why there are no libraries? :)
Driving theory test  | hazard perception test | theory test
Hazard perception test is an interactive practice in the driving theory test featuring hazard perception clips to identify the developing potential hazards.
Kid Dancing To Lady Gaga
My Parody Clip Of Judas Awaits Debut in August
> The "profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get [functional programming]" [2]

Nitpick: the quote is not exactly about functional programming, it's about Lisp. Though Lisp is often used as a functional language, there are very lisp-ish features such as macros and the (lack of) syntax that you will not necessarily find in other functional languages.

That said, if you want to learn functional programming but are put off by Lisp's feel, you could try Haskell or OCaml or F#.
Thanks! Believe there are MTurk API bindings for Ruby (the site is built in Rails.) Appreciate the comment!
Thanks Oren!! I really, really appreciate your business.
3 Free Work At Home Jobs
Dating website USA | Dating in USA | Make friends online in USA through PickMe
Make friends online in USA through best dating website of USA- PickMe. Get famous join Pick Me
Three actually.
This loophole is closed for federal corp tax, but its still available for state tax planning.
How to remove yourself from all background check websites
Gifts to Pakistan, Send gifts to Pakistan from UK
Send Gifts to Pakistan is the most reliable , reasonably priced, and service oriented shop for gifts delivery to Pakistan. We offer free shipping on all orders inside Pakistan.