A lot of the work I do would be almost impossible without Emacs. The custom modes I’ve written for editing my peculiar documents would be just a pain in any other editor.
I'm surprised to here someone filtering out ML content, do you just not like the language family? I feel like it's pretty much synonymous with content like this, which is why I think that's interesting.
FYI MLs are not pure (in the sense of Haskell) and they are mixed paradigm languages. SML includes all the essentials of imperative languages and the 'O' in OCaml is for its object system.
OCaml is much more "practical" than Haskell. It does have some fancy type-system features, but it's easy to write imperative code as much as "purely functional" code. Sometimes it's the most idiomatic way to do things.
I had Serge Abiteboul and Xavier Leroy as TAs in university, with a coursework based around CAML, and developed a deep, abiding dislike of the language(s) then. On the other hand I love Erlang, so it's not the functional aspect that irks me about them.
I'm on vacation in the Adirondacks but might be working on my Ocaml Gameboy emulator on the side. I've been finding it immensely rewarding. I've also gotten to use some of the Objective features of Objective Caml in this project, which are ironically a little overlooked :)
Consider that the author has a bunch of well regarded articles on Lobsters, all written in the same style, many predating the slop epidemic by years. And this is your very first contribution to the site.
I may be wrong because I just skimmed the article, but I don't really see any signs of LLM text, and find the text generally calm and pleasant. Could you point them out?
I've been reading Karthik since well before LLMs and this is 100% his voice.
"if the author didn’t bother to write it themselves, why should I bother to read it" <-- I read this everyday and it's boring. Very ironic that you're copy/pasting anti-AI vote bait while falsely accusing someone of being unoriginal.
I retract my original comment. After rereading the post, I think I jumped the gun on this one because of how the opening list was phrased. My apologies to you and the author.
A lot of the work I do would be almost impossible without Emacs. The custom modes I’ve written for editing my peculiar documents would be just a pain in any other editor.
previously (4 comments)
Glad this was reposted without the ‘ml’ tag, which I filter out!
I'm surprised to here someone filtering out ML content, do you just not like the language family? I feel like it's pretty much synonymous with content like this, which is why I think that's interesting.
I’ve never managed to learn a pure functional language. I filter out most languages / OSs I don’t use or have an interest in, like Windows and APL.
FYI MLs are not pure (in the sense of Haskell) and they are mixed paradigm languages. SML includes all the essentials of imperative languages and the 'O' in OCaml is for its object system.
Maybe I should give OCaml a try. I think my earlier attempts were with Haskell.
OCaml is much more "practical" than Haskell. It does have some fancy type-system features, but it's easy to write imperative code as much as "purely functional" code. Sometimes it's the most idiomatic way to do things.
Oh, that's a shame. I think a dip in one of the Windows Internals books is worth the time. It's a really neat design.
I had Serge Abiteboul and Xavier Leroy as TAs in university, with a coursework based around CAML, and developed a deep, abiding dislike of the language(s) then. On the other hand I love Erlang, so it's not the functional aspect that irks me about them.
I'm on vacation in the Adirondacks but might be working on my Ocaml Gameboy emulator on the side. I've been finding it immensely rewarding. I've also gotten to use some of the Objective features of Objective Caml in this project, which are ironically a little overlooked :)
[Comment removed by author]
Consider that the author has a bunch of well regarded articles on Lobsters, all written in the same style, many predating the slop epidemic by years. And this is your very first contribution to the site.
I may be wrong because I just skimmed the article, but I don't really see any signs of LLM text, and find the text generally calm and pleasant. Could you point them out?
I've been reading Karthik since well before LLMs and this is 100% his voice.
"if the author didn’t bother to write it themselves, why should I bother to read it" <-- I read this everyday and it's boring. Very ironic that you're copy/pasting anti-AI vote bait while falsely accusing someone of being unoriginal.
I retract my original comment. After rereading the post, I think I jumped the gun on this one because of how the opening list was phrased. My apologies to you and the author.
Thank you. Means a lot that you retracted. Too many people double down, clearly you're not one of them :-). 🙏
Why even bother leaving this comment.