Parallel async bindings, how cool is that? (Imagine if you could declare multiple `await` bindings in parallel)https://github.com/janestreet/ppx_let#parallel-bindings …
-
-
That kind of jargon turns me off immediately.
-
Strong confirm. You may love or hate Ember or Rust, but I enjoy working with people who treat accessibility as a first class goal.
-
I love Rust too. But I don't get why it's inherently bad. Can make up for it elsewhere, but this just breeds tension with a diff group
-
It's fine but niche. These ideas deserve wider distribution with more beginners. But ML/Haskell folks look down on efforts to do so.
-
While there's precedent, doesn't mean all of us are like that. New efforts are excited to bring this to JS folks
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't understand what's wrong with having a macro for syntax that's useful?
-
Or is this just "using the word monad is automatically anti-accessibility"?
-
Come on man. The entire sentence is inscrutable unless you're deep in the dream. The macro is fine b
-
"Ember CLI blueprint for initializing a Ember application with a module unification layout." Jargon is unfamiliar to people outside.
-
That jargon sucks. I'm embarrassed of that, especially "module unification layout". That said, it's an internal detail, so diff.
-
ppx is also internal OCaml jargon. Monad and applicative are no more jargony then data binding or borrowing.
-
It's internal jargon in the elevator pitch of a project meant to be used directly by end users.
-
And the fact that you think those jargons are equivalent is probably related to everyone's great surprise that monads aren't taking off.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.