> This feature does have some limitations, for instance when we have multiple nested function calls, but in those cases an explicit lambda expression is always still possible.

I've also complained about that a while ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35707689

---

The solution is to delimit the level of expression the underscore (or dollar sign suggested in the article) belongs to. In Kotlin they use braces and `it`.

    { add(it, 3) } // Kotiln
    add(_, 3) // Scala

    { add(subtract(it, 2), 3) } // Kotlin
    // add(subtract(_, 2), 3) // no, this means adding 3 to the function `add(subtract(_, 2)`
    x => { add(subtract(x, 2), 3) } // Scala

In that case I want the signature of "this function pre-computes, then returns another function" and "this function takes two arguments" to be different, to show intent.

> achieved through compiler optimisation

Haskell is different in that its evaluation ordering allows this. But in strict evaluation languages, this is much harder, or even forbidden by language semantics.

Here's what Yaron Minsky (an OCaml guy) has to say:

> starting from scratch, I’d avoid partial application as the default way of building multi-argument functions.

https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/reason-general-function-syntax-d...

I think Java (or other JVM languages) are then best positioned, because of jooq. Still the best SQL generation library I've used.

I use ShiftIt (a lovely project, but dead) reimplemented in Hammerspoon. It is very comprehensive.

In this case some slop is hacked and exposed. I check them out to see if they're good yet. The quality of the slop is unrelated to whether they'd get hacked.

This reminds me of some youtube videos when I was researching some stuff to buy. Those videos are just still images plus text-to-speech narration, usually with an annoying background music.

> some core developers (who are compiler developers by trade) are actually experimenting with and using these same tools too, but haven't suddenly turned into 13kLoC PR-opening AI superheroes.

>> Here's my question: why did the files that you submitted name Mark Shinwell as the author?

> Beats me. AI decided to do so and I didn't question it.

https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369

Indeed, and they won't buy the knife at this price anyway. My point is that not being dishwasher-safe does not matter for ~everyone. If they care, they won't do it; if they don't, they won't buy it.

They can manufacture 80 GWh a year. To get through dunkelflaute with moderate renewable percentage we need tens of TWh. Not to belittle Tesla, but that's 3 orders of magnitude difference.

Are you changing your mind or can you give me numbers to change mine?

Since you're in the industry, maybe you can answer this question and change my mind.

> has resulted in big changes

The change was allowing market forces to align incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_and_opening_up