I'm a backend dev mostly and use Elm for all my frontend needs. Yes there are some things compiler-side that could be improved, but basically it's fine.
I appreciate not having to keep up with new releases!
I hate how people talk about type systems as if there were no trade-offs to be considered. A Hindley–Milner style type system would effectively kill half the features that make Elixir amazing, and worse, would break pretty much all existing code.
They are working towards "the real thing", whatever your definition of real is.
BTW in the 90s people tried to come up with a type system for Erlang, and failed:
--- start quote ---
Phil Wadler[1] and Simon Marlow [2] worked on a type system for over a year and the results were published in [3]. The results of the project were somewhat disappointing. To start with, only a subset of the language was type-checkable, the major omission being the lack of process types and of type checking inter-process mes-sages. Although their type system was never put into production, it did result in a notation for types which is still in use today for informally annotating types.
Several other projects to type check Erlang also failed to produce results that could be put into production. It was not until the advent of the Dialyzer [4] that realistic type analysis of Erlang programs became possible.
Heh, similar thoughts! The main difference that I only used Scheme for SICP, and I've used a bit of Haskell.
I like Haskell in theory, but: just to get a hello world takes a lot of CPU and disk space. The standard library is full of exceptions (you can use a different prelude, that opens a whole different can of worms). The ergonomics of converting between the thousand different string types are awful.
So, you being basically me, I have some recommendations:
Idris (2): good stdlib, has dependent types. A beautiful language. The compiler is self-hosted and bootstrapped by lisp - very elegant! The ecosystem is basically nonexistent though.
PureScript: also improves on Haskell in many ways. But, it's more of a frontend language, and though you can do backend, you're stuck with JavaScript runtime. Oh well.
It works so far! No major gotchas that I know of yet. From the perspective of the apps, they are just talking to a normal Wayland compositor, so everything works as expected.
Just try it for your workflow, and if you run into any problems just open an issue and I’ll fix it.
What are the funding billboards for, anyway? They're an eyesore, and it's all paid by us EU taxpayers anyway. They should say "financed by you", or better yet, not exist to begin with.
The EU budget [..] accounts annually for around 1% of the EU's GNI (gross national income), or around €160-180 billion. National public spending by EU countries averages nearly 50% of their respective GNI.
I'm not sure I understand your comment tbh. Where does the money come from, if not from EU taxpayers?
> the EU subsidy budget is dwarfed by each country's national budget.
My comment had nothing to do with that.
The page you linked has a question "How is the budget funded", which lists the revenues:
> Another difference between the EU budget and national budgets is that the EU lacks direct taxation power to finance its budget and instead relies on revenues called “own resources”.
> These revenues are:
> - Custom duties on imports into the EU
> - A small part of the VAT collected by each EU country
> - A contribution based on the amount of non-recycled plastic waste in each EU country
> - National contribution from each EU country based on its gross national income (GNI). All member states contribute according to their share in the combined GNI of EU countries. This is the largest share of the own resources.
They put them up with and without the EU funding info, right? Here most is not EU funded, but there are still signs, because how else do you know what is going on? Or are big construction projects completely unsigned where you live?
They used to be unsigned. I agree it's good for the funding to be transparent, but a government and/or EU-wide website would be fine to list the supported projects. No need for ugly signs.
I mean, see Brexit; there's a bit of a "what have the Romans ever done for us" aspect to a lot of euroscepticism. Some of the more Brexit-y regions were also amongst the poorest, and thus the largest beneficiaries of EU funding (eg https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/26/cornwall-fea...)
The idea is to show people the benefits of the EU, essentially. It is unclear how well it works.
Cornwall, say, had reason to feel hard done by; it was the second-poorest NUTS 3 region in Northern Europe. It's just that they were directing their ire at Europe, and not at the national government where it belonged. All but one of the ten poorest NUTS 3 regions in Northern Europe were in the UK pre-Brexit (along with the very richest NUTS 3 region, inner London), and there's a reason for that.
(Of course, the problem is now solved by Brexit; as the UK no longer participates in Eurostat, _none_ of the poorest regions in the Eurostat statistics are in the UK!)
Yes, I remember Wales received a lot of EU funding for infrastructure and there used to be those "funded by the EU" signs everywhere. They voted in favour of Brexit.
I think this sort of things does little to convince people. The road network was there and working before the EU, it is still there and working now.
Especially, people were well aware that the UK was a consistent net contributor to the EU budget so knew that EU funding for infrastructure was not reallly a benefit.
Well, except that in the UK the devolved nations (Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland) receive more funding from the government than England does. For instance, Wales received 20% more money per person than England does.
Devolution itself also means that, effectively, the UK government is in charge of England while the devolved governments are in charge of their respective nations, so just looking at which projects the UK government funds is misleading.
So, it is not accurate to say that regions are neglected, and you might even argue that ultimately the South East of England and England overall fund the whole country...
Overall, I do not know if that was specifically a benefit for Wales. Obviously in the end the Welsh decided that the cons outweighted the pros, anyway.
I (pro-EU Austrian) think they are great, as they show that we also get huge benefits through our EU membership and that we can do such enormous megaprojects only together
Also, eyesore? What do you have against the EU flag?
They do get made at national level. That's because, for example, what to build is decided at national level, then they bid for EU funding as part of financing of the project.
Basically yoy bid to get some of your money back...
> Crossing the Koralpe massif more quickly and with more comfort. That’s what the future of train travel from Graz to Klagenfurt looks like. With the Koralm Railway, you will arrive at your destination even quicker. The fastest connection will shrink from three hours to just 45 minutes.
There aren't any big mountains between Graz and Klagenfurt. It's an hour on the Autobahn. That it took three hours by train... well, they just had shitty railroad? Best of luck, Southern neighbors!
There is, the Koralpe massif. Previously to get to Klagenfurt from Graz you first had to go north through a somewhat tight valley for about 50km before the train would turn to the south-west towards Klagenfurt, again tough alpine valleys, and with a lot of stops inbetween.
The new route goes south/south-west immediatley, is very straight compared to the old route, and has at most 3 stops.
Why? (I'm one such person defending Elm's lack of development)
reply