$ time nvim -es --cmd 'vim.cmd("q")'

    real 0m0.057s
    user 0m0.016s
    sys 0m0.017s

    $ time emacs -Q -e kill-emacs

    real 0m0.230s
    user 0m0.165s
    sys 0m0.064s

    $ time emacs -nw -Q -e kill-emacs

    real 0m0.095s
    user 0m0.057s
     sys 0m0.017s

"It's One Banana, Michael. What Could It Cost, $10?" - Lucille Bluth

Remote: Yes

Willing to relocate: No

Technologies: Haskell, Rust, Nix, Golang, Python, Linux, Mentoring, Javascript/HTML5, SQL, NoSQL, REST APIs, Django, Terraform, Docker, PostgreSQL

Résumé/CV: https://www.linkedin.com/in/codygman/

Email: cody@codygman.dev

Over 15 years I've worked both in large corporations in cross-functional teams, small teams (5-10) at small to medium companies, and alone as a freelancer taking on projects across many different technologies. My focus in the past few years has been on being a force multiplier for my team and increasing predictability, stability, and developer enjoyment of output. I'm also a big proponent of mentoring and frequently create tech talks from the daily work notes I take so that the lessons from any challenges I face benefit not only me, but my team as well.

My preference is functional languages and companies that use Nix and/or NixOS, but it's more important to have a healthy company and team than any specific technology.

I also do Parkour in my free time, and I have given lessons to coworkers in the past who are interested :)

What use would magit be if it presented the exact same interface as `git rebase`?

Do you know what it would lose?

> Did I stop and read the docs to figure out how it wanted me to rebase in this brave new world? Hell no.

I suppose you don't since you didn't read the docs.

Why try it in the first place if you expected it to be the exact same?

They could have just added pattern matching and exhaustivity checking though, right?

Haskell developer here... What about case classes and lenses? Do they solve this?

One day hopefully

Interface{} and nil pointers point to yes.

Maybe, but what are the chances they chalk it up to a normal and acceptable learning path?

> They can't extrapolate that forM_ works for any monad in the future.

I think it's important people know that, but how much does it matter for IHP's intended audience?

> Agreed, I wish we all used |> instead of &, but that operator is called & in Haskell. You're crippling your users' ability to read other code-bases in the future

I think this is an important point, but I'm not sure how much it would matter for most.

> And that same code would be plenty readable with &, don't you agree?

Most would assume & means something with boolean and I bet. I find & readable, but even Haskellers on my team didn't really seem to take to it.

> There's so much more to "building" than the first month of development!

People don't really value the long term but default I've found. Then once they have committed to something to a degree, they don't change from it.

If IHP makes it easy enough to get to the point of feeling like one should keep using it rather than starting over...

Maybe the extra learning challenge will feel "normal", worth it, and otherwise motivated.

> Haskell is an order of magnitude more productive for me than other languages (ruby), because of its differences.

I can relate to this, but coming from Python. Others who aren't sold on Haskell by it's usually toured virtues are probably likely to be sold by getting someone spun up to hack away on more quickly.

I find making a lot of these arguments kind of funny since I typically find myself arguing from your position :)

> Kinesis advantage 2 is for the first kind and ergodox is for the fanboys

Maybe it's true, but I bought the Moonlander (same brand as ergodox) for ergonomic reasons. It allowed my hands to be more in line with my shoulders and reduced shoulder pain/tightness I would have at the end of the day.

I want to try the Kinesis advantage, but one thing stopping me is the fact that it's not a split keyboard. I think it's likely my natural arm position is wider than the Kinesis.

> The most efficient tools are usually the most ugly and boring ones

I think there's some truth to this, but speaking it as such an absolute truth seems misguided.

Just as an anecdote, if you are persistent enough you can learn Haskell and get a job writing it :)

What if you work in a language where SomeType is pass-by-value?

Would you still prefer the string?

Haskell with stack is a pretty happy place for professional software development in my experience.

Or maybe ya know... A pandemic has its own negative effect on productivity.

You are being down-voted for either lying or using such a ridiculous definition of "no one" to push your agenda while disregarding facts.

https://github.com/github/semantic/blob/master/docs/why-hask...