> the lack of parentheses for function calls plus currying means that to read a function call, you need to already know how many arguments the function takes
While I agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying, note that the syntax has nothing to do with it, it is purely about Haskell using currying excessively. The syntactic translation between Haskell and JS is straight-forward and 1-1:
f x y z -> f(x)(y)(z)
f x (y,z) w -> f(x)(y,z)(w)
I agree that excessive currying is not great, and generally push for non-curried arguments unless a curried form realy is used in practice. But for this to really be comfortable, and to still enjoy all the hgiher-order programming that's nice with Haskell, we would need good records (strucural, anonymous, extensible), which it doesn't really have right now, so we are stuck with currying.
I agree, I also renewed my passport recently and the website and process is quite smooth. It's the more complex cases, first requests from abroad, etc., that lack automation.
> although I don’t really see why it was relevant anyway, my son’s Britishness is derived from my Britishness, her nationality and the nationality of her parents is essentially irrelevant
This is essentially happened to me, the "75% of the initial doc requests turned out to be irrelevant" was referring to this sort of thing.
> Tonight we were wondering why nobody had identified the flight which caused the UK air traffic control crash so we worked it out. It was FBU (French Bee) 731 from LAX/KLAX to ORY/LFPO.
> It passed two waypoints called DVL on its expanded flight plan: Devil's Lake, Wisconsin, US, and Deauville, Normandy, FR (an intermediate on airway UN859).
> Bearing in mind this is likely decades old C code that can't be rewritten or replaced because the entirety of the UK's aviation runs on it.
It's new code, from 2018 :)
Quote from the report:
> An FPRSA sub-system has existed in NATS for many years and in 2018 the previous FPRSA sub- system was replaced with new hardware and software manufactured by Frequentis AG, one of the leading global ATC System providers.
That's true, but then, why did engineers try to restart the system several times if they had no clue what was happening, and restarting it could have been dangerous?
That's super interesting (and a little terrifying). It's funny how different industries have developped different "cultures" for seemingly random reasons.
> Conflict resolution doesn’t seem to be an issue for radicle as the owner of the repo (if I understand this correctly) is the one that needs to accepts patches and will have to republish on IPNS
This isn't quite what happens. Anyone who is authorised to do
so (according to the semantics of the radicle code of the
machine) can accept patches. They do this by forming a valid
input (a radicle expression), with the correct signatures
etc. This input is then sent to the owner via pubsub, so you are
right that it is then the owner which republished on IPNS. The
owner doesn't have to do anything manually though, this is all
done automatically by the daemon. The assumption is that the
owner will republish anything that is correct according to the
machine's semantics, but it is true that the owner can censor
otherwise valid inputs.
I think if you have an evolved enough type system, then there isn't such a problem. I have written an Elixir backend for Idris and given some examples of well-typed actor communication here:
While I agree with the general sentiment of what you are saying, note that the syntax has nothing to do with it, it is purely about Haskell using currying excessively. The syntactic translation between Haskell and JS is straight-forward and 1-1:
I agree that excessive currying is not great, and generally push for non-curried arguments unless a curried form realy is used in practice. But for this to really be comfortable, and to still enjoy all the hgiher-order programming that's nice with Haskell, we would need good records (strucural, anonymous, extensible), which it doesn't really have right now, so we are stuck with currying.