you need to write a front end to draw lines

but it has a database backend that you can augment, has prioritization,
dependencies, user assignment, completion estimates and completion dates

it may suck, but it seems substantially more useful than the tools that were made
for the purpose

except for -
    - security leaks
    - differential pricing
    - security agencies deciding that you dont fit a common pattern and
        targetting you for additional surveillance
    - impact on your credit rating
    - ability to get certain kinds of insurance at all
    - when the marketers in question aren't just selecting legitimate ads, but scams
    - we just changed our privacy policy and the last 10 years of data on
        you is available to anyone for the low low price of 0.0001 USD
    - our company was acquired by a company whose contact information is a p.o. box in moldava ....
   

did they really bring it up off haskell? you think they would have
noticed something

yes, but you still haven't explained why perl 6 is taking so long

you missed the renaissance of wonder?

actually i'm really suprised the makers of the more expensive models actually used some
of that money to produce a product of marginally better quality

this isn't true. a fully recoverable abstraction can be maintained without digging into
the architecture. you just need a point periodically where you flush everything and define a
consistent checkpoint

personally i prefer doing this in the database, or operating system, or application, but suggesting
that you cant do this underneath is simply wrong. it just comes down to performance

actually, fuck off. language design people have distilled the semantics of sql down to something with is actually composable, compilable, able to be evaluated in a distributed context, and actually..useful. datalog. mercury.

sql is a festering sore. its a poorly conceived idea that for random reasons survived

unfortunately thats not sufficient. you also need the us govt to throw you tens of millions in
'research contracts' that dont amount to anything, and have them agree to buy your overpriced
machines even though they dont really do anything useful

even then its a pretty difficult market

obviously you haven't worked with the itu in the past. they had a whole replacement for the internet worked
out. trees worth of documnets written in languages and metalanugages where the shift was not entirely clear. all
just to describe an ananlogue of tpc/ip

despite is inherent us-centrism i think the ietf did a great job.

sure, in comparison to the piles of money previously given to large contractors to flail around pretending to solve the unique mission critical requirements of the military, its nothing!

they want their tty back

the pci sig blurb says its mostyl cleanup and the removal of 5v support

does anyone know of anything interesting in 3.0?

why didnt they just execute the haskell?

does anyone believe that at any point the hardware would be the bottleneck?