I love Vim and use Vim bindings everywhere I can (Emacs, Firefox, Intellij etc.).
But I don't think it is actually more efficient than traditional editing, but rather just a different way of editing which may be (or may be not) more convenient to _some_ people (myself included).
Especially nowadays with modern IDEs and auto-completions and AI code helpers, it's not really about text editing anymore, it's not the bottleneck.
Async, await, iterators, futures etc. are pretty much standard constructs in almost all programming languages / concurrency frameworks.
Whereas Actions, Transitions, Pending State, Reducers etc. are React-specific idiosyncrasies.
I guess that's the main issue people have with React, when you learn it you have to spend so much time to learn all these React-specific constructs and idiosyncrasies that are not transferable anywhere else.
The whole Solar Cycle (The Book of the New Sun, Urth of The New Sun, The Book of The Long Sun, The Book of The Short Sun), Fifth Head of Cerberus, Peace, There Are Doors, The Sorcerer's House ... .
Really? I have the opposite experience. I _want_ to love CL but Clojure wins when it comes to IDE support and libs and documentation.
Maybe it's just me but I find (SB)CL tooling to be very obscure: ASDF, QuickLisp, Roswell etc. My main issue with it is that it's all written in CL itself and doesn't provide handy CLI tools to execute common tasks (compile app, build package, run tests, deploy etc.). Not to mention that documentation is horrendous.
Basically, I want it to have something like Maven/Gradle/Leiningen to manage dependencies, run tasks and so on. Am I missing something?
I was always wondering about MWI and couldn't find the answer to one question. AFAIK Everett never mentioned Many Worlds in his paper. What he was talking about was a Universal Wave Function. In that sense, 'world' is just a 'quantum system', not 'Universe'. At what stage we started calling it Many Worlds?
When scientists say Many Worlds, do they actually mean Worlds as physical 'parallel universes' that pop up into existence?
Or they only mean that those are probable outcomes of our measurement (probable histories) that never actually happened (only one of them happened - the one we end up being it)?
But mass decreases which implies that event horizon shrinks, right?
Also, I thought never-increasing entropy was only applicable to closed systems. In that sense, when particles leave black hole through Hawking radiation, total entropy of the Universe remains the same. Am I missing something?
> Stephen Hawking proved that the area of a black hole’s event horizon — the surface that marks its boundary — cannot decrease.
I thought he proved the opposite: that black holes (slowly) evaporate through Hawking radiation, lose mass, hence their event horizon shrinks. Could anyone please elaborate?
Also, do scientists actually say that thermodynamics and black holes are the same thing? Never heard of that. I think they only mean that laws of thermodynamics are universal and should be applicable to black holes as well.
Isn't it like a standard practice? Hire an expensive professional first that will do all the heavy-lifting, then outsource bugfixing and maintenance somewhere else where it is cheaper.