Notices by swannodette (swannodette@mas.to)

@andy_matuschak I also think UI innovation for everyday computing has more or less run its course (and long ago). There's not one UI convention I encounter daily that wasn't around in OS X Beta back in 2001. I think a bit about Morphic now (but requires starting over for all desktops)

@nikitonsky @noahtheduke and sorry, the actual source https://blog.phronemophobic.com/dewey-analysis.html

@noahtheduke well important to not conflate our personal experience w/ what can be gleaned in surveys or other forms of data collection https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lispcast/lispcast.github.io/master/files/clojure-analysis-results.csv

@noahtheduke @nikitonsky I don't personally see much benefit in allowing pet features to proliferate. It's definitely not the Clojure I want (and I'm not claiming what I want is the most important thing). I think most users don't care about pet features and never really did - this is not the kind of thing that comes up in surveys etc.

@nikitonsky @pmonks the graph just shows Rich more or less had a handle on what he wanted from Clojure by 2010, it was obvious back then. There is no news to speak of here?

@pmonks @nikitonsky what real risk? The whole point of open source is to push that down to zero. Do you not think that after 17 years plenty of people know how Clojure works? Given how many people have created high fidelity dialects it's almost an ideal scenario.

@pmonks @nikitonsky your use of the word "risk" here is classic FUD move right? The "risk" that you don't get some pet feature you want? Please use this word in a way we can agree upon.

@nikitonsky Clojure development is really the same as it was since day one, if Rich doesn't like it, it ain't gonna happen. I can understand how that might be disappointing if you missed that particular memo :)

@nikitonsky it doesn't follow from my argument at all! I've not said anything about what should or shouldn't be done, only the costs of doing so. The conclusion that you made seems far bigger of a leap - that the lack of progress on IMO uninteresting reader feature means anything at all about Clojure / dialect / tooling dev

@nikitonsky case in point I've been thinking about and working on porting method values for months mostly for portability - I have tons of notes, many conversations w/ Thomas Heller and @borkdude - on paper it sounds trivial but it never is.

@nikitonsky improving parity is a lot work even if it changes very slowly. A lot of Clojure maintainers do tooling / dialect work as a side project

@nikitonsky I don't think "resources" is ambiguous here? There are a number people that you know by name that will have to get together and synchronize for a feature of debatable value.

@nikitonsky @jack 1. no, not in a way that impacts all dialects, 2. do you really believe Clojure has the resources that Java and Go do? Your conclusion has a "sky is falling" rhetorical flavor which is really tiresome for maintainers.

@jack @nikitonsky yeah this. Changing the reader is a hard sync point for tooling and all the actively used dialects.

@nikitonsky hard disagree - it's 2025, stop making UI things for the web that don't make this a top priority

@nikitonsky are obviously inaccessible things without qualifications in good faith?

@nikitonsky I haven't seen a WASM UI thing that doesn't seems like a bloated inaccessible pile of garbage?

Yet another WASM abomination https://github.com/RibirX/Ribir

The beauty of the Web in the trash fire of modern technology is that it's backwards compatible. You don't have listen to anyone. You don't have to adopt anything new. You want to write ECMAScript-262 3rd ed, simple HTML, and early CSS3 - go for it.

@nikitonsky working w/ tailwind shows how out of the loop I have been. When inspecting styles this pattern seems to introduce an incredible amount of clutter to sift through?