aaroniba

To what extent do tight-knit teams adjust their interpretation of confidence levels on an individual basis to reflect their ratio? Like, "Overconfident Oscar expressed a tiny bit of doubt, so he must not really have high conviction at all." Or, "Underconfident Uma expressed slightly more conviction than usual, so we should pay attention."

Also, from my experience, it seems like (and this isn't a strong opinion) doing competitive high school debate teams turns people into Overconfident Oscars.

Yeah, I've used a transaction functions a few times but never had a case where two transaction functions within the same d/transaction ever interacted with each other. If I did encounter that case, I would probably just write one new transaction function to handle it.

I think the article answers your question at the end of section 3.1:

> "This behavior may be surprising, but it is generally consistent with Datomic’s documentation. Nubank does not intend to alter this behavior, and we do not consider it a bug."

When you say, "situations leading to invariant violations" -- that sounds like some kind of bug in Datomic, which this is not. One just has to understand how datomic processes transactions, and code accordingly.

I am unaffiliated with Nubank, but in my experience using Datomic as a general-purpose database, I have not encountered a situation where this was a problem.

Yes lots of programming consists of gluing together libraries, but in my experience languages vary dramatically at how well they do even this.

For example, consider logging libraries. It's useful to have statements like log.debug(someSlowFunction()) in your code. In LISPs it's really easy to create a (debug) macro that generates empty code when you don't want debug logging turned on. In other languages, you have to wrap the arguments in a function to avoid extra runtime costs, and even then you can't avoid the "if debug" conditional at runtime. All those anonymous function wraps add clutter, and that clutter accumulates. There are many other cases where having advanced language features greatly helps gluing together libraries.

Another aspect is the tooling. When I am considering a new library, I like to try it out in the REPL. In Clojure I can quickly start calling library functions, and use the (time) macro to get a sense of how long they take to evaluate. Not all popular languages are amenable to this kind of REPL-driven experimentation with libraries.

Not only does the language impact how you use libraries, but it also impacts what libraries may exist. Some libraries are simply not possible to write in less powerful programming languages. In LISP this would include any library that uses a macro. For example, Clojure was able to introduce core.async as a library, providing an async facility similar to what golang offers. But in most languages you wouldn't be able to implement that as a library.

Another major example is reagent vs. react. The concise hiccup representation supported by Reagent is only possible because of design decisions that went into Clojure. JavaScript users are stuck with JSX, which is less concise, and in my opinion far less good.

Another issue that arises when using libraries is whether or not the language has a static type system. Without getting into the age-old flamewar about static vs dynamic typing, I'll just note that popular languages differ in this dimension, and this has a big impact on what it's like to glue together libraries.

So overall, I think this essay undersells the benefits of LISP. Even if you spend all day gluing together libraries, LISP makes that much better by improving how you can call libraries, how you can quickly experiment with them, and even what kinds of libraries can exist.

I have a Boosted Rev and live in Nob Hill in SF with some steep hills. It zooms up all the hills pretty easily.

Like others, it took me a while to understand what this actually does. Even coming from a Clojure+Datomic background.

As best I can tell, this is like phpMyAdmin for Datomic. But the cool and unique thing about Hyperfiddle is that in addition to writing queries and seeing the results, you can customize the result display using markdown or even arbitrary clojurescript code. Then you can generate forms to input new data (based on the schema of the database), connect it to more clojurescript, and before you know it you've built a web app. Because the whole thing is web based, you can send a link to your "fiddle" (web app) to other people, and they can use it without knowing anything about programming. This is all without git, editing text files, or even thinking about deployment or hosting. I think that's all pretty cool.

In most situations, this would be dangerously powerful, especially running on a production database. But Datomic has unique facilities for speculating "what if I transacted this" (which is how the hyperfiddle staging area works). Datomic also has powerful undo and time-travel options, which makes it much less terrifying to hyperfiddle it.

It's also cool that hyperfiddle queries/views/code are all stored in Datomic, so you get a sort of version control type layer built-in.

I think this is a cool vision for making it much quicker to develop lightweight database-backed web apps. Obviously the current state of hyperfiddle needs a lot of work on the UI and home page to explain this all.

I know that algorithmic betting on horse racing is popular in the UK via exchanges like Betfair. Does anyone know if there is an exchange/API for Hong Kong horse racing?

You might think from the URL or logo that this is some kind of official ClojureScript page, but it's not. The official page is clojurescript.org (no hyphen).

I don't speak in any official way for ClojureScript, but as an enthusiast, I wish this author had chosen a different URL to make that more clear.

Other ideas to mitigate the confusion: using a different logo in the corner; prefixing the html <title> with "unofficial"; and adding a more prominent link to clojurescript.org titled "Official ClojureScript Page".

Yes. You put it better than I did.