Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ronenlh's commentslogin

Agree, the article mentions this in a way:

> There are many ways to do so: race others in ranked online challenges, try to solve hard programming riddles, or study new paradigms. However, most programmers, whose work involves a form of writing, overlook writing itself.

The point is that sometimes that "doing" doesn't advance you, as it's not challenging anymore. Writing can be a form of deliberate effort to improve in your craft. There are many other ways to improve, the post focuses on one.


this simple behavior can be applied today to unsubscribe from “noreply@” emails and it’s not done


Similar current Twitter thread on the same issue:

https://twitter.com/lazerwalker/status/1517849201148932096?s...


I was hoping for 5, but got hundreds


This is a unusual post for me, as is the first one I write on methodologies as opposed to technologies. Constructive criticism welcome.


Great writing and research. You added great examples to make it clear, both in code and gifs. It was both fun to read and interesting. I was surprised to see Netscape running, I might try as well to play with the first JavaScript.


Thank you! I used VirtualBox running Windows 95, but there were a lot of roadblocks - finding a Netscape 2.0 installer, mounting it etc.

Unfortunately I didn't document the process at all and have forgotten everything, so I can't give much useful info, apologies. Just know that there is pain down that path.


> The purpose of MCAS is to give the MAX the same aircraft handling characteristics so that it retains the original 737's type rating.

The article mentions that prominently in a few paragraphs, this is the first one:

“That's because the major selling point of the 737 Max is that it is just a 737, and any pilot who has flown other 737s can fly a 737 Max without expensive training, without recertification, without another type of rating.”


Yes and no. The syntax has been updated to make it less OCaml and more JavaScript-like.

ReasonML can compile to native, rescript can’t. Reason still exists as a separate project, and projects that have been rewritten into reason will not necessarily switch.


In theory this is correct, but in practice Reason(ML) is dead. Or it was the last time I checked a month or two ago.

ReScript lives on though.


Typescript is “breath-first,” you can convert your entire project to typescript in a minimal pull-request. Gradually adopting the syntax.

ReScript requires a lot of commitment, as you have to completely rewrite each module to 100% comply with the type algorithm.

Typescript even transpiles when it encounters type errors.


You don't have to. You can have write a single component in ReScript and use it with the rest of the project written in JS or TS. See https://rescript-lang.org/docs/gentype/latest/introduction


Sorry but that's not true. You can adopt ReScript one file at a time. ReScript supports importing and exporting typescript types out of the box so you still get the type safety from "the other side"

We started using Rescript by adopting individual files until most of our codebase is ReScript. We still have Typescript lingering around but folks _choose_ to refactor it to Rescript because they've found it easier to work with.


Amazing in depth overview.

There are useful comments in my (shameless plug) post about my same transition:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25845147


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: