I basically feel the same way. In a way it is very liberating. All of those esoteric languages that were on my ever-growing todo list are now things I can let go of. Ultimately we have to ask ourselves how we want to spend our time, and now it is much harder to justify spending countless hours studying one programming language after another. We still can, of course, but we are now more "free" to do other things instead.
It's sort of sad, but really I think it is a weight off my shoulders.
I'm glad I'm not the only one. What keeps me on mac, however, is the hardware seems so much better than the alternatives. I'd love a macbook quality linux laptop.
Why are all of the comments about the name? The author literally said this is a toy project for educational purposes... There are thousands of projects on github. This isn't even the only other project named "vanta" on github (I just checked and there is an animation library for javascript called vanta). So, seriously, who cares?
If OP was an actual company, that would be different. But this is quite literally a toy project.
Anyway, congrats OP! Your project looks really cool.
This article is insulting. It is trying to paint the picture that all of us who go against the mainstream are deluding ourselves if we think it is anything more than the digital equivalent of wearing a leather jacket.
Very often mainstream stuff really is actually worse than obscure stuff. I don't have to explain this to the HN crowd, I'm sure.
The article is pretentious (which is ironic since it is arguing for adopting mainstream technology).
The fact that this exists shows that there is a serious problem in the python ecosystem. I'm sure it solves a real problem, so I'm not knocking the author. It's more of a "state of our industry" problem.
From the abstract: "Evidence links lifestyle factors with Alzheimer’s disease (AD). We report the first randomized, controlled clinical trial to determine if intensive lifestyle changes may beneficially affect the progression of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or early dementia due to AD."
I agree. I once attempted this on a javascript project (a personal project, not at work), after reading about APL/J/K people and their philosophy. My constraint was: I should never have to scroll. I also aimed to have as few files as possible.
The result was surprisingly pleasant, and it changed how I feel about this sort of thing. I think the Clean Code approach makes a lot of sense when you are working on a big project that contains lots of code that other people wrote, and you rely on IDE features like jumping to definition, etc. But if you can write code that fits on one screen without scrolling, something special happens. It's like all the negative aspects of terse code suddenly vanish and you get something way simpler and overall easier to work with and understand. But you really have to work to get it to that point. A middle ground (terse code but still spread out over lots of files, lots of scrolling) would be the worst of both worlds.
"john ousterhout's book is the only book on how to write software that has any actual evidence behind it."
This is false and hopefully no one takes you seriously when they read that. There are books about empirical methods for software engineering, for example, which actually seek to find real evidence for software engineering techniques. See Greg Wilson's work, for example.
There are lots of other architecture/design books that use real world systems as examples. "Evidence" is definitely lacking in our field, but you can find it if you try.
I see that kind of thing all the time. Usually it is about static types. People think that dynamic languages aren't "serious", or something. It is laughable that these people still make up a significant amount of comments, here in 2024.
There's something about it where it doesn't feel quite right when using the mouse as a GUI app. Compare it to something like Sublime Text. I can't quite describe it exactly. It just feels off. It feels like you are supposed to use the keyboard shortcuts to navigate around, and the mouse is sort of bolted on secondarily or something. So I would try to make it feel more like a modern GUI app, where using the mouse feels right.
It's a valid concern. But I just want to point out that shelling out to other things is part of the "paradigm" when using a shell-like language. If you embrace this paradigm, you will better understand the style.
Think of it like learning functional programming. You have to "embrace the paradigm" instead of just mutating things all the time like you might be used to in an imperative language.
It's sort of sad, but really I think it is a weight off my shoulders.