> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
> This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter with a half-million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. . . . This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
This seems like an attempt to stir up a flame war. Hazel is written in ReasonML and uses OCaml-style syntax, and the Elm influence is in the design of an interactive programming environment based on running the program as you edit it. I think they could have said SLIME/ML and conveyed a similar idea. I strongly doubt the authors have anything against Haskell.
yes. also keen on first class modules (coming soon to Hazel). syntax could have easily been more haskell-like, current team is pretty ecumenical wrt surface syntax, excepting that i have as yet been unable to convert anyone to the gospel of s-expressions.
biggest reason more haskelley syntax didnt/hasnt happen/ed is the current syntax engine does not support significant indentation. hazel concrete syntax isn't stable yet though we're also thinking seriously about semi-colons
But yeah the general idea makes sense. Once you hit a timeout, change the mask to things that will close existing open things in a valid manner (}, ), ], ")
Clearly the way forward is to teach the students how to do:
"... the kind of tweaking you see me doing above, tweaking which I can do because I possess a relatively sophisticated understanding of narrative craft and know what to tell the AI to do"
This will likely entail teaching them how to do the job without the use of the AI (as was always the case). (The same applies to software development [which is just a different form of writing]).
The problem with this logic is that most definitely "popularity" is already proxied by some data that they are collecting and thus could be acted upon by the machines. So either Google are poor coders or this is something different than popularity.
