Another example a web link that points to a page that no lnger exists.

It's a null pointer exception.

How does flint compare to to NuShell?

My current favorie pipe shell.

PS: your current readme reads like AI generated.

Which subconciusly makes me wonder:

If the author couldn't botter to write it, why should I botter to read it?

Yes, I used it, you're right about that, your comment might make me rewrite the entire documentation, regarding your question:

"How does flint compare to NuShell?"

Well, basically, you don't "type flint" in your terminal, you write scripts (.fl) to replace legacy .sh or .py files in your local environment or on your servers, it compiles that into a native binary. I would say that flint builds the automation tools, NuShell is where you run them.

Thank you I was also expecting Literate Programming.

One of the clearest thinkers I had the privilege of knowing was Dr. Eli Goldratt author of Theory of Constraints.

Fortunately for us he defined as his life's mission to teach the world to think clearly.

So I suggest you start with three of his books: The Goal, Is not luck and The Choice. After trat read "The thinking Processes".

Apart from the theory of Constraints literature you can study system dynamics. And if you like programming then "Introduction to NetLogo" is great at both.

If you don't like programming then Zenge's the "Fifth Discipline" is a great intro to system dynamics.

Thanks for replying. I'll definitely check his stuff out.

Steve jobs killed it when said it would work on the iPhone because if the "huge" memory and battery resources. He said Javascript and HTML was everything you needed.

Here is the original memo: https://www.editionmultimedia.fr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/...

actually, that memo says Jobs did it for proprietary competitive reasons

There is also verso / recto that uses the same technique.

https://github.com/nickpascucci/verso

I actually wish for a tool that would use two things: 1) navigate code like a file system: Class/function/lines [3..5]

2)allow us to use git commit revisions so that we could comment on the evolution of the code

So far the only thing capable has been leoEditor + org-babel

Eiffel is the language you are looking for. It's pre-conditions and post-conditions prove the properties of the code that you actually are executing.

The book that does the equivalent but with the properties checked at runtime is: Object Structures (like data structures but with objects).

Here is the link:

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL2979696W/Object_structures?e...

In Eiffel we have multiple inheritance. It's such a powerful tool. And a natural way to model the world. For example if you think of your typical OOP book You have Vehicles with engines * cars that move on roads * planes that move on air * and boats that move on water.

But then comes an aqua-plane and it breaks your inheritance tree!

But with multiple inheritance is the most natural thing to have a plane that is also a boat and a car.

In Eiffel we favor the appropriate tool that better represents the world.

There's some OO design fallacy here but not sure what to call it.

The reason the aqua-plane broke the inheritance tree is because the modeling is being done backwards.

Objects should be defined by behaviour first and only incidentally contain whatever state is required to support that behaviour.

A well designed object is much more similar to a closure than it is to a data structure.

My programs are not full of engines and cars and planes and boats and aquaplanes.

These metaphors used to teach OOP back in the day seemed appealing but never proved their worth in actual software design and implementation.

I agree with disabling history in youtube.com...

Now I only watch videos from my subscriptions as opposed to whatever the algorithm feed me.

Code is not only code.

It's like saying physics it's just math. If we read:

F = m*a

There is ton of knowledge encoded in that formula.

We cannot evaluate the formula alone. We need the knowledge behind it to see if it matches reality.

With llms we know for a fact that if the code matches reality, or expectations, it's a happy accident.