You may be a racist.
Parens turn out to be an asset, not a drawback to the language. Allowing macros. Tooling like lispy/paredit takes advantage of the parens too.
Ty for the share.
I think diff is OK as a verification check after a deployment. But diff is not OK to generate the change script itself. It's not about abusing the diff. It's about diff being fundamentally the wrong technique to…
Migration frameworks superior? No way. Migration frameworks work on diffing dev with a copy of the deployment target. This is inferior. If you rename a table it may drop the table losing all data, then create a new one.…
Nice becuase you can get SQL syntax highlighting.
Lisp is honestly the best language you can choose assuming you know it well and have mastered the tooling. And it can be much faster than other dynamic languages like python or ruby. But your focus on the language over…
Wikipedia says engineering's original meaning is from latin: >meaning "cleverness" and ingeniare >meaning "tocontrive, devise"
You may be a racist.
Parens turn out to be an asset, not a drawback to the language. Allowing macros. Tooling like lispy/paredit takes advantage of the parens too.
Ty for the share.
I think diff is OK as a verification check after a deployment. But diff is not OK to generate the change script itself. It's not about abusing the diff. It's about diff being fundamentally the wrong technique to…
Migration frameworks superior? No way. Migration frameworks work on diffing dev with a copy of the deployment target. This is inferior. If you rename a table it may drop the table losing all data, then create a new one.…
Nice becuase you can get SQL syntax highlighting.
Lisp is honestly the best language you can choose assuming you know it well and have mastered the tooling. And it can be much faster than other dynamic languages like python or ruby. But your focus on the language over…
Wikipedia says engineering's original meaning is from latin: >meaning "cleverness" and ingeniare >meaning "tocontrive, devise"