Fork me on GitHub
#off-topic
<
2018-01-17
>
seancorfield01:01:08

Oh for a confirm(); JS dialog...

fellshard02:01:30

This is the one time in your life you are allowed to recommend that 😛

qqq04:01:02

I'm used to writing let with each var on a separate line however, is

(let [a 2, b 3]
  (+ a b))
perfectly idiomatic clojure code, using , instead of \n to separarate let clauses ?

Alex Miller (Clojure team)05:01:00

That’s fine (although uncommon)

fellshard06:01:32

Probably best for very compact bindings like that

fellshard06:01:48

Which is rare; you're usually not binding constants

jgh21:01:03

hawaii’s government needs to get its shit together

fellshard21:01:23

Frankly, I expect most government software is like this. Different incentives, no accountability.

jgh22:01:47

i dont just mean the software, but also the retweeting fake pictures of the software 😛

fellshard22:01:04

I expect nothing less than fake, too. It's practically in their job description 😛

fellshard22:01:31

This is the kind of scenario where it should be made public who the contractor was, in a "you'll never work in this town again" kind of way, lest this kind of thing ruin the reputation of all developers.

madstap21:01:29

"Whatever the real interface looks like, it requires the employee to click through a second warning prompt before sending out the alert, according to state emergency officials." So apparently they did have a confirm(); dialog

fellshard22:01:50

Which people quickly ignore because they've been trained since the '90s that pop-up alerts are innocuous and unimportant due to their ubiquity.

fellshard22:01:03

Especially if the same prompt is displayed on both the drill and non-drill options, with the same level of severity.