Hey, thanks ruling out the 60s as too old even to consider. :)
I think anyone who is a seat-filler has a problem. But if one codes for fun, if one sees new technology and just DLs a tutorial and starts using it, if one is always thinking about how ones code can be tighter, such that every time one looks at ones code one rewrites it, one will be OK.
No need to stop coding to make money. Top coders do fine, and then one gets to code.
I am consulting for a company where I gave up a top spot so I would have more time to work on my startup: http://tiltontec.com/
I am sixty-two, have been coding head down on hard problems since 1978, on the Apple II.
You sound like you know how to code. Can you talk a little more about how the algorithm you were confronting made the effort of getting a Scheme platform working worthwhile? Understood if the answer is "not that big an effort". :)
Part of my question is that a solid lisp (of any ilk) programmer can program non-lispy languages in a lispy way.
Maybe somewhere in between. The imperfections are so small that even a modest effort would never get undertaken. Something folks need to realize is that Lisp truly is a metalanguage: I think both Graham and Norvig knocked off quick and dirty OOP hacks when that (decent) fad came along. So it is hard to imagine what innovation might come along that would force us to get the Lisp hood up.
Good gosh, no. For example, I am with Einstein: make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. ie, There is a right amount of everything. I guess I am also with Goldilocks, then. I said, "More comfortable", but Americans have nicely demonstrated how in excess that leads to obesity and diabetes. So now we have learned that true comfort comes from a bit more exercise and a lot less garbage food, and now we have come full circle: life is not futile. People ridiculed in the 60s for espousing healthier diet finally got heard and made the world a better place. Did you see the recent news about Coke/Pepsi in decline? Kaching.
My first thought was that the question cannot be answered without knowing what we must fail at inevitably for life to be futile. I looked up futile to be sure:
"incapable of producing any useful result; pointless."
As I feared, it begs the question: what is considered useful?
If it is leaving the world a better (healthier, more peaceful, more ccmfrtable) place than when you found it, no, life is not futile.
If the goal is personal happiness or at least contentment, no, life is not futile, though it certainly feels that way during clinical depression. (Long, dark winters can do that -- look up S.A.D.)
Nonsense. The standards process is a beast, so no one is going to kick it off for anything other than a good solid rethink. As others have noted, the language and spec are done, aka pretty much ideal. Go write some code, people.
ps. Love elsewhere a mention of "modern-style" language development. Sounds like "make it up as we go", what Lisp was doing in the sixties.
The interesting thing to this old fart as a newcomer to HN is that it really does not make much difference whether or not he is a troll. Unless of course he opens that PayPal account.
What I am fascinated by is the unquestioning support from so many. It speaks to a community with a strong "we're all in this together vibe".
Whether or not the OP is a troll or a psych grad doing research does not change what came after, and what came after to me is the big story here. my2.
Where's the beef? If it is a Web design company, web prefab is an issue because that's their beef. If the company sells something else and the site looks/works great, I would only give them credit for saving time/money/energy by using prefab.
I pulled out of my dive before going broke, but not by much. Licked my wounds, got a job, built up my savings for three years and now can try again, this time much wiser (and less risky) for the experience. Survival is success, I was told early on, and...yep.
It was a long time ago, but I used a golf scoring gadget to keep count of my daily driving excesses. Counting a behavior changes it. The awareness broke the habit. Improvements of course were to the number of points on my license and the safety of all.
A double shot of espresso is great, I have a million ideas all at once and am juiced to do it all. I get absolutely nothing done until it wears off and then I need a nap. hth.
We had someone do amazing work for just a couple of months and it was disappointing to lose him to a start-up but we appreciated the two months of output. But that would be the exception. It can take quite a few months to get up to speed on some code bases, and to learn the non-IT business side if one is new to the sector, so we are loathe to hire anyone with demonstrated startup fever.
You did not include one iota of information about the "awesome new" language, let alone a link to it. If you have that little interest in this alleged language, I do not think the word awesome means what you think it means. But I think it just does not exist.
I think anyone who is a seat-filler has a problem. But if one codes for fun, if one sees new technology and just DLs a tutorial and starts using it, if one is always thinking about how ones code can be tighter, such that every time one looks at ones code one rewrites it, one will be OK.
No need to stop coding to make money. Top coders do fine, and then one gets to code.
I am consulting for a company where I gave up a top spot so I would have more time to work on my startup: http://tiltontec.com/
I am sixty-two, have been coding head down on hard problems since 1978, on the Apple II.
Good news, grasshopper: it never gets old.
Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my nap.