Kind of worthless video. Just speculates about how it works. They don't ever even show the app working!

These glasses aren't even AR so the idea that they can overlay details as shown in the mockups is impossible.

Isn't Elixer dynamically typed?

That appears to not support comments. How they made that mistake after JSON is a mystery.

Well, in fairness imagine if Guido did become a racist sexist arsehole. I don't think he should be immune.

But clearly this situation is not right.

I haven't used one, but my guess would be they're fine if you're a "web browsing and email" sort, but most of us here probably aren't, and then you're going to have pain when you need to install some tool that expects to be installed globally, because so many pieces of open source software assume the "spew files all over /usr" installation method.

Feels like you'd be spending a lot of time fighting expectations in the same way that Nix has to.

OMG they finally noticed how bad the REPL is. It's it going to let you paste indented code now?

Worse than Sourceforge? Savannah?

Nonsense, there are tons of systems like that now. I've been playing with Deno & Fresh, it's great. Trivial to install, a pretty great language, Fresh doesn't force everything to be client side - you can easily write old school completely server side rendered sites if you want but you get to use TSX which is waaaaay superior to the old text based templating systems we used to use (Handlebars, Jinja, etc.).

It also has built in hot reloading by default so even faster than PHP. Literally hit save and you see the results.

That's not really true. C# and Java are reference-based, uses GC and can be multithreaded, and are very comparable to Rust/C++/C performance. Certainly no more than twice as bad. Whereas Python is probably 50x as bad.

The real answer is that Python developers have deliberately avoided worrying about performance when designing the language, until maybe 2 years ago. That means it has ended up being extremely dynamic and difficult to optimise, and the CPython implementation itself has also not focused on performance so it isn't fast.

But I agree the aim of offering C/C++ speed is never going to be met with Python syntax.

You should use python3 anyway not python. The latter is sometimes Python 3, sometimes Python 2 and sometimes doesn't exist. python3 works reliably, assuming you have it installed.

(And assuming you aren't using the official Windows Python installer, but that doesn't seem like the case here!)

I think even in languages that do a lot at compile time (Rust, Haskell, etc.) it's still standard practice to write tests. Maybe not as many tests as e.g. Python or JavaScript or Ruby. But still some.

I work in silicon verification and even where things are fully formally verified we still have some tests. (Generally because the formal verification might have mistakes or omissions, and occasionally there are subtle differences between formal and simulation.)

I agree. OCaml too. I think there are several factors that lead to it being very difficult to read other people's code:

• Currying and lack of syntax in general means you have to be a human parser for basic things like "which part of the text is a function name? which bits are arguments?". Often it's impossible to tell without looking up the function definitions.
• The functional style - while generally great - also makes it very tempting for people to write enormous heavily nested functions where the control flow is hard to follow. You sometimes get assignment expressions that are hundreds of lines long.
• Haskel & OCaml feature global type inference. Programmers often omit explicit type annotations which very often means that function types are inferred as generic. This means you lose several huge benefits from static types. For example you can no longer look up the types that will actually be passed into the function, and inferring the authors intent is much harder. It also makes error messages way more confusing.
• I don't know why but Haskel and OCaml programmers love stupidly short identifiers.
• They also abhor comments.