If the mentioned mistakes or similar language design mistakes were made. Because mistakes will always be made.

(Unison lang comes to mind but it’s refactor failsafe seems narrow. How about: Antifragile language design? Self-correcting language?)

always annoyed me as a syntax for binding, when first learning programming, coming from using = in equational reasoning in mathematics.

x: x + 1

would have been more natural as assignment/binding, imho.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46105365

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45461577

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

There should be a very clear line between saying something and using physical force. So if you think the term «violence» isn’t a part of defining that line (or even the terms «attack», «aggression», «force», «assault» etc. which you seem willing to use to describe speech), then I am eager to hear what term(s) you propose to uphold that distinction?

No one is opposing the fact that speech can be used to call for violence, but that doesn’t make the speech itself violence. The speech part of it is the «call for» or «incitement to» or even «lead to». But we must not mix up cause and effect.

Which stands in contrast to «speech».

Though any expression can be used in a broader sense than what it essentially/accurately signifies. Some such examples are of course included in dictionaries, without taking away from the point (what they list first and their general primary agreement: that violence is physical force).

I hope we can agree how dangerous it is to wash out the meaning of the word «violence», and conflate it with «speech». Especially all the while people are being killed (subject to violence) for their speech by other people who justify it by saying that they were responding in kind (eye for an eye) because they deemed their mere words to be actual violence (physical harm) too.

You seem to be using violence figuratively (synonymously with ‘injustice’), but ignoring it’s essential and accurate definition.

Both Britannica, Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Merriam-Webster dictionaries, as well as the etymology of the word agree that «violence» means the use of «physical force».

It would remove the awkward ad-hoc parentheses at every instance.

Besides: The Americans will LOVE it!

"Unbundled Integrations: Over the coming months, we'll progressively unbundle third-party integrations—such as the authentication providers, Storybook, and others. These integrations will then be independently maintained by their original teams or the community, giving you greater flexibility, faster updates, and control over which integrations you adopt and support."

https://web.archive.org/web/20250407165256/https://redwoodjs...

See also earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43592998

RedwoodJS is going into maintenance mode and is named Redwood GraphQL.

RedwoodSDK is the focus for the team going forward. "It begins as a Vite plugin that unlocks SSR, React Server Components, Server Functions, and realtime features". Which reminds me of the modular approach of Vike.dev (aka. vite-plugin-ssr).

Seems like the unbundled and modular approach won over the opinionated fullstack all-in-one framework approach.

«same form» in Greek would rather be «homomorphic». (Or in latin «eademforma», which could maybe be turned to «idoform» in english)

«Homoiconic» could also have been named «monomorphic» (single form), similar to to «polymorphic» (many forms).

«Homoiconic» in Greek means «same-likeness» or «self-similarity» in English.