I don't think you're being fair to Chris Penner. He ends his blog post with: "It may take me another 5 years to finally finish it, but at some point we'll continue this journey and explore how we can sequence effects using the hierarchy of Category classes instead." Emphasis by me.
So while it is true, that what he has described so far is not sufficiently powerful for normal programs, he has clearly stated that there are more abstractions between Applicative and Monad to explore than what he has presented so far.
Yes, that's an interesting implementation. I'm using Firefox, and the jumps to the notes and back to the paragraph are recorded in history, and has the expected effect when clicking the back and forward history arrows/buttons.
Apparently for the same things as with XML/JSON/TOML.
> I followed the link and read the page, but I’m still not sure what the point is!
According to the website:
> It has no data types, no semantics, no underlying model of cons cells or anything similar. It’s as close to pure generic syntax as it gets.
> So at the lowest level Jevko is a minimal formal specification for flexible trees of text.
For its simplicity it seems quite powerful to me. I don't see it replacing JSON/markdown or even TOML. But is seems trivial to implement on very low-level, older, less bloated, or less powerful systems.
Every time I've written or otherwise dealt with JSON/XML/etc. I wished I was dealing with something simpler, so I created it. If I had Jevko as a full-fledged alternative to JSON or XML, supported by tools, etc., I'd pick Jevko in a heartbeat. I like minimalism. Some people like it too, so perhaps Jevko can serve them well. There are many good reasons.
> But is seems trivial to implement on very low-level, older, less bloated, or less powerful systems.
Indeed, this is THE feature and a realistic application. I hope!
For a naive unrealistic vision that I sketched out some time ago see:
Say you build your own language, but don't want to write a parser for it (people who write tons of prog langs know that syntax is the most boring part (for some, I'm sure some people love it)) so you can borrow this, it gives you a syntax tree, and you just continue from there.
Tongue-in-cheek, yes, but the concerning bit is "(c)" instead of "(TM)". If they don't understand the (huge) difference, do they understand the licensing of their code?
My concern is stated in the very next sentence. Most concerns people have, especially about software, copyright, and licensing, do not involve people getting physically hurt. Why would you jump to that conclusion?
They were being factitious, a concept that apparently eludes you in multiple contexts.
And your jump is laughable for multiple reasons:
a) It's a poor application of logic to imply not knowing Copyright vs Trademark would affect their ability to use an off the shelf license like Apache License 2.0...
The entire point of an off-the-shelf license like the one they used is to not require an understanding of the minutiae of copyright law
b) You're wrong anyways, the phrase is not something that could be trademarked.
Short phrases can be trademarked when they're "inherently creative" or have developed enough secondary meaning that they can be instantly tied to a product or service
"bullshit-free" passes neither bar, so it can't be trademarked.
Ergo you've actually shown that you yourself, do not know enough about licensing to be questioning their facetious use of the copyright mark. It's laughable you'd try to question that at all honestly.
They're obviously being facetious, so it doesn't matter that "bullshit-free" probably can't be trademarked. What matters is that's the place you'd put a trademark symbol, not a copyright one. I'm not worried about the Apache license, but the types of things people without a solid grasp of copyright licensing often do, like copying code from elsewhere without license to, tainting their projects. I don't know whether that's happened here, but seeing things like "(c)" instead of "(TM)" makes me suspicious and less trustful.
Oh my actual god you are taking a clear bit of jest (you said so yourself) and acting as if it wasn’t in jest to make it an actual worry that you think it’s representative of what’s in the codebase? The author was clearly making a little fun of their own description of the project. Lighten up. Or file an issue correcting the jest to your liking.
I actually was just looking at it a few days ago. Interesting project, and looks designed exactly to produce academic books and texts. But it's not programmable in the TeX sense, where you can extend it to do new things within the language -- it's just that PreTeXt's base features include most of the things I want.
I'm trying to resist writing another book, since I know how much time it would suck up, but if I do, I'll probably look at PreTeXt and maybe Scribble as options.
It appears Jeff Bezos has partially doxed Howard Dylan. In the email he published he removed Dylan's phone number and email address, but the image included, probably as Dylan's signature, clearly shows his phone number and email address.
If your an exec at a media company, it is understood that your (business) phone and email will become widely shared public knowledge. This wasn't even his personal information, but simple a work email and phone that doesn't even belong to him, but to his employer.
So while it is true, that what he has described so far is not sufficiently powerful for normal programs, he has clearly stated that there are more abstractions between Applicative and Monad to explore than what he has presented so far.