1. 2

      This is a lot like the David Foster Wallace commencement speech, “This Is Water.” It’s easier to find a link to the video than to the transcript, so here’s the latter.

      http://bulletin-archive.kenyon.edu/x4280.html

      1. 2

        But…

        from Strange Loop 2015

        1. 2

          Ah, seems Gary only released the video this month, I presumed the recording was more recent.

      1. 3

        I’m thinking of doing a Hierarchical State Machine implementation in Erlang/Elixir this week. Or maybe over the holiday break.

        1. 4

          I’m doing some maintenance on my Elixir rate-limiting library (hammer), and I’m starting to play with Nim.

          Oh, and we just recorded a monster episode of General Intellect Unit, on the movie Blade Runner 2049, so I’ve got to edit that this week too.

          1. -4

            Venezuela called. They’d like you to wake up and smell their coffee. It’s quite a strong brew too.

            I can’t help but wonder how many hundred million people need to die under tyrannical Marxist/Communist/Socialist regimes for people to finally conclude that Marxism really is a bad idea.

            No, I don’t want to discuss the supposed differences between those concepts. They’re roughly the same in the ways that matter.

            It’s always the same excuse too, and boils down to: “Disincentivizing of being productive and massive resource misallocation just weren’t done right!!”.

            Naturally then, mass destitution, starvation and death camps followed! Duh? What would you expect when Uncle Karl’s sagely teachings were misinterpreted?!

            1. 4

              To turn the question around, how many need to die under Capitalism in order for us to see that as a bad system?

              1. 5

                This Lobsters thread, especially with @rama_dan’s start, is not going to be the conversation that hashes out the historical judgment and future prospects for these political and economic systems. Maybe let’s settle for linking to the good sources that must exist on the topic.

                1. -2

                  There’s plenty of educational material on the Mises Institute’s website.

                  Here’s a random example: https://mises.org/library/socialism-economic-and-sociological-analysis

                  People just tend to be allergic to obvious truth that goes against their preconceived notions, and people like the idea of “Marxism” because it appeals to our sense of entitlement.

                  We don’t want to work for a living, we tend to feel like we’re underpaid (~“exploited”!!), and we’d much prefer others to work for us.

                  Meanwhile, governments are happily arranging for police states all around the world, and the masses clamoring for more Socialism (~government intervention) supports their goals nicely.

                  1. 1

                    Thank you for the link, I’m sure folks will find it useful for understanding these huge topics.

                2. -1

                  round, how many need to die under Capitalism in order for us to see that as a bad system?

                  Yup, people die every day. But fortunately it seems like the world has never been better: https://ourworldindata.org/

                  1. -5

                    Are you kidding me?

                    Take a look at Venezuela, and compare it to a “Capitalist” Western country, and re-think your question.

                1. 4

                  Sounds good so far! It would be better if you had some reading material that you could include in the podcast description.

                  1. 2

                    Noted, will be sure to include some links to reading material in future episodes :)

                  1. 8

                    I did the survey because the article says “the remaining 63 images were equalized for a fair voting.” I had to find out if they actually put up 63 images for the user to grade.

                    I counted 65, many of which should never have been a choice in the first place. At least Mozilla, when they asked the community to choose a logo, had the sense to whittle their choices down to a reasonable number.

                    1. 4

                      I was amazed at the sheer bulk of really sub-standard images they put in here. The selection should have been pared down to maybe 20 images (that pass some basic quality filter), because as it stands I think a lot of people will not bother to complete the rankings, due solely to time constraints.

                    1. 3

                      I’m re-reading Four Futures by Peter Frase, as homework for a podcast episode I’m recording next week.

                      Also picking through the last of Endnotes 1: Preliminarily Materials For A Balance Sheet Of The 20th Century, which is also great, if a little difficult for being a dense theoretical work translated from French.

                      1. 3

                        A couple of things:

                        I’m wrapping up a v2 release, with a substantially better API, of my Elixir library Hammer. Hopefully that’ll be done this week.

                        I’m also trying to put together a lineup of co-hosts for a podcast project, analyzing and generally gabbing about technology and tech-work from a far-left perspective, and looking at left theory through the lens of tech. It’s proving pretty hard to find people who are interested in collaborating though, and who have the right mix of political theory and tech experience, so we’ll see if that pans out.

                        Update: just landed a third co-host and we’re already on to planning the first few episodes!

                        1. 15

                          This is, in my biased opinion, the best thing in browsing since tabbed browsing.

                          1. 4

                            I’m with you on that, it’s an absurdly good feature. And it makes Chromes container-per-window thing feel clumsy by comparison.

                          1. 20

                            To be honest, I can’t believe that anyone who advocates pair programming has ever actually pair programmed. It is a dismal slog—even when you’re lucky enough to get someone you like as a pair. If you don’t, then it probably could constitute torture.

                            1. 19

                              It can be fun if you are lucky enough for it to feel like two friends trying to crack a puzzle, but when it is two people who barely like each other being forced to work together then it probably sucks.

                              1. 5

                                I’ve had the experience you’re describing but the issue with “two friends trying to crack a puzzle” is that it actually requires a puzzle for the description to be applicable. For most professional, relatively experienced, developers, even if they are working on very interesting problems in the large, sitting at a keyboard isn’t really puzzle solving time.

                                If I have some problem that’s conceptually difficult I might talk to a colleague about it, but I don’t need them to spell out the solution or watch me do the same in implementation. Imagining pair programming as joint puzzle solving is a bit like considering a lawyer to spell checking a document for spelling mistakes the same thing as legal advice.

                                1. 3

                                  I’d also add that sometimes it is a way to get past a hurdle when you are banging your head against a wall. Not to be done every time, just when you are stuck and need extra input and a sanity check.

                                  1. 4

                                    These scenarios aren’t pair programming, though. These are normal collaboration. Pair programming is supposed to be day-in, day-out shared-screen collaborative coding.

                                    1. 6

                                      Well people rigidly following textbook definitions might be part of the issue.

                                      1. 4

                                        Well, collaboration just happens. It’s a given. Every programmer who hits a snag collaborates (if they have teammates). Pair programming as a practice is different. If you’re not talking about the idea as espoused in XP or in Agile propaganda, you’re not really responding to it.

                                        1. 2

                                          I see, I didn’t know they expected ALL code to be written that way.

                                        2. 1

                                          Why are you talking about kicking a pig? That has nothing to do with anything.

                                          1. 2

                                            I don’t understand what made you say this.

                                            1. 3

                                              I wasn’t rigidly following the textbook definitions of the words in your sentence.

                                              1. 1

                                                listen, if you don’t like pear programming then don’t do it.

                                  2. 15

                                    I guess I disagree with you, and also disagree with the OP. While I would personally consider myself an advocate of pair programming as an occasionally useful tool, the OP certainly doesn’t consider me an advocate:

                                    let Ep = pair programming efficacy
                                    let Es = solo programming efficacy
                                    
                                    Proponents of pair programming claim that Ep>Es.
                                    

                                    Certainly, I would not claim that. (In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone credible who has claimed something so rigid, so I wonder if the OP is engaged in a straw man.) What I would claim is that I have had the occasion to pair program with others (I have played both roles, the mentor and the mentee), and it has generally been a positive experience. I’d like to note though that it has always occurred under a mutual desire from both parties to actually pair program; I am certainly against some top-down force directing people into a certain style of work.

                                    To give more context, I pair program very infrequently. It’s on the order of a few times (if that) per year.

                                    I would also say that OP’s analysis seems quite incomplete to me. For example, the last time I pair-programmed with someone was on a bit of Javascript code. I know Javascript reasonably well, but the other person didn’t. We had a choice: I could either write the Javascript piece of the task, or the other person could write it. But the other person would take quite a bit longer because they’d have to learn a bit of Javascript to do it. However, in the future, it was clear that this other person would benefit from being able to make changes to the Javascript code, so perhaps the initial investment was worth it. Both of us saw this as opportunity to learn together. I hooked my keyboard into his computer, and we were off with a well defined task. He could ask questions and ponder things in real time, since my full focus was on the task. The exchange of information was rapid, and we both enjoyed it I think. Needless to say, that person has now made several other contributions to that Javascript code since then without any future pair programming.

                                    Could that person have just picked up the Javascript themselves? Yes! Would it have taken them longer? Maybe. Would have it taken so long that it was actually worth me stopping all my work and pair programming for an hour? I have no clue. That kind of micromanagement of efficiency seems hard to nail down in a precise way.

                                    1. 3

                                      In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone credible who has claimed something so rigid, so I wonder if the OP is engaged in a straw man.

                                      Certainly the following Martin Fowler quote proclaiming that Ep > Es makes my argument not a straw man.

                                      1. 8

                                        Fowler also says this:

                                        Of course, since we CannotMeasureProductivity we can’t know for sure. My view is that you should try it and the team should reflect on whether they feel they are more effective with pairing that without. As with any new practice make sure you allow enough time so you have a good chance of crossing the ImprovementRavine.

                                        Which kind of puts a damper on this entire enterprise. This statement, to me, feels like it makes it clear that Fowler isn’t intending to be dogmatic about this. With that said, his choice of words could be better!

                                        1. 5

                                          The statement you quote there certainly has the feel of something pragmatic, but in practice my experience with nearly everyone in the “agile world” has been a feverish dogmatism toward pair programming. I suspect it’s born out of a lack of empathy for others, and a failure to comprehend that a practice that might be overwhelmingly positive for them could simply fail to work for other teams, but whatever the reason the discourse has always been universally that pairing (or mobbing) is The One True Way, and any objections are purely the result of The Practice being misapplied.

                                          1. 2

                                            Capital-A Agile usually means practices being dictated by one or two people (typically none of the four principles in the manifesto are noticed). Pairing in an environment like that is an exercise in management control by ensuring you are closely watched at all times.

                                            1. 1

                                              Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I guess if this thread has taught me anything, it’s to be on the look out for places that mandate this style of pair programming and probably try to avoid them. I certainly have experience with “dogmatic agile,” but I hadn’t really heard of this intense style of forced pairing before!

                                              And the next time I comment on this matter, I will be sure to get the definition problem out of the way first. :-) I had no idea that “pair programming” was even jargon in the first place!

                                            2. 2

                                              otherwise they would be advocating for pair programming all the time

                                              My company does exactly that!

                                              And good point about Martin Fowler.

                                              1. 2

                                                otherwise they would be advocating for pair programming all the time

                                                My company does exactly that!

                                                Hmm… All right. Seems quite strange to me. I’ve never heard of such a thing! If that’s true, then yes, I agree that is quite unreasonable.

                                                (I made a mess of my previous comment and edited it down to something more reasonable. Sorry about that.)

                                                1. 4

                                                  XP held that “all code sent into production is created by two people working together at a single computer.” Source here. With respect, I don’t think that if you only pair a “few times a year” you’re experiencing it as it works if executed as originally envisioned. Collaboration on hard problems is useful—even fun, if you’ve got a good colleague or two to work with. Pair programming, though, is not just that. It’s working on the same code, taking turns as the “driver” and the “observer,” either physically at the same computer or sharing your screen and microphone for hours every day.

                                                  1. 7

                                                    Nobody bothered to actually define pair programming until now, but as this thread demonstrates, there is no obvious clear consensus on what the term means.

                                                    So if you say, “oh i was using this definition of pair programming. What do you think about that?” In response, i would say, “i wouldn’t want to work under those conditions either.” And indeed, i have never experienced that sort of pair programming.

                                                    In any case, i was clearly wrong about saying this post was a straw man, since it seems people really do advocate for this stuff. But I’ve never experienced anyone use pair programming with the definition you provided. At work, when we say, “pair program” we mean it as, “a short period of intense collaboration on the same code might be helpful.”

                                        2. 3

                                          It is a dismal slog

                                          I’ve always thought of it like being on a chain-gang, splitting rocks in the desert.

                                          1. 2

                                            I think it has it’s place - for juniors or for the particularly tough problems.

                                            That said, I’ve only really enjoyed it with a few people I call friends, generally never enjoyed it with anybody I didn’t get along with anyway.

                                          1. [Comment removed by author]

                                            1. 11

                                              WRITE DOWN what you want to accomplish, and how you will do it.

                                              I’ve found this to be very effective. I keep a scribble pad on my desk, and write on it constantly during the day. It’s like an attention co-processor for my brain.

                                              1. 1

                                                Agreed. I find that having a physical or digital notebook handy lets me vent the “pressure” of ideas, incoming tasks, or random questions since I know they won’t be lost when they get pushed out of my working memory. Then I can move on with my task. It’s amazing how much my brain churns up though. I’ll sometimes come away from a task that took an hour with a page full of notes, tasks, and questions.

                                                1. 1

                                                  Exactly the same. One thing that helps is doing dailies with my team and actually write this down. It’s also great to know who is working on what to be sure to take time if anyone needs to come to check things with you. So for example, I can set some potential tasks that I’ll do if I do not need to collaborate. It’s also great to share oneself work because you feel accountable for some productivity and actually helps to face the impostor syndrome.

                                                2. 3

                                                  I used to have a water bottle near me to keep myself hydrated, but if i have it near me, i don’t take breaks (away from my keyboard) and sit in my place for long time. Now I need to walk two to three rows to drink water and i also have my frequent breaks away from my keyboard. During this walk I’m able to relax and come up with ideas if I’m stuck on something for long.

                                                1. 2

                                                  I guess someone has to link to the (legendary) Stack Overflow response about parsing HTML with regex: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1732348/regex-match-open-tags-except-xhtml-self-contained-tags

                                                  1. 2

                                                    Also

                                                    Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I’ll use regular expressions.” Now they have two problems.

                                                    • Jamie Zawinski
                                                    1. 5

                                                      I’ve always hated this quote (and most of its variations). As far as I can tell it boils down to “never use regular expressions”, which is bad advice.

                                                      1. 3

                                                        Indeed, I’d rather see someone use a regex where appropriate than try to re-invent a capture-group from scratch.

                                                        EDIT: I’ve seen some absolutely miserable text-extraction code written by juniors who hadn’t ever picked up regex because it was “icky”. A quick demonstration later the whole module could be deleted and replaced with a handful of neat little regexes, making good use of capture groups.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          I ‘grew up’ with Perl, so in that day and age, it was something that did need to be said…

                                                      2. 1
                                                      1. 7

                                                        This stuff is no better than Phrenology, a post-hoc rationalisation of pre-existing prejudice. It’s sad that the self-styled “smart guys” are falling into the oldest and dumbest of bias-traps.

                                                        1. 8

                                                          There’s a bit of a difference between Phrenology and the sorts of scientific studies carried out on this topic today. Further, everybody claiming there isn’t a difference is either a) ignorant of the state of current research or b) pushing a false equivalence to further their own agendas for what they believe is correct.

                                                          Scientists have voiced that the science is accurate, others have put up much more thoroughly sourced articles. The science isn’t in question, really, by people that actually know the science.

                                                          This leaves us with the policy conclusions. The conclusions of:

                                                          • “Hey, maybe we should see how we can better serve women”
                                                          • “Hey, maybe we should have greater transparency into the diversity black-box”
                                                          • “Hey, maybe we shouldn’t make conservative viewpoints verboten”

                                                          Without spiraling off into “but but but muh soggy knees”, any reader should be able to look at those conclusions and say “Those are pretty reasonable things to consider, we can have a productive discussion about them even if we disagree”.

                                                          The fact that we can’t do so, because people immediately zoom off into talking about institutional bias and pseudoscience and namecalling and so forth, should be alarming to you. It is alarming to many of us, but most of us are keeping quiet having seen both the attacks on that person and the tacit support in our industry for those attacks.

                                                          You’re going to get upvotes, of course, because the rot is clearly set in even in this community but that doesn’t make your statement factually accurate–not that that matter anymore in public discourse. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                                                          1. 6

                                                            Th e science isn’t in question, really, by people that actually know the science.

                                                            You’ve missed the point entirely. Even if there are consistently repeatable physiological differences (and spoiler warning, the science on this is absolutely not settled), why is that a good excuse for manifesto guy to denigrate his co-workers? Why is it Good Actually™ for him to use a 0.002% difference in spatial reasoning in a study from 1971 in a contest of domination over his peers?

                                                            Let’s put it a different way: there are major physiological differences between you and I, and anyone else in this thread. Does that mean some of us shouldn’t be in this industry?

                                                            And that’s the connection to Phrenology, the misapplication of science in service of naked prejudice.

                                                            There are also female engineers within google who are massively more skilled than manifesto guy. should they be made to feel unwelcome in their own profession because of the bizarre psyco-sexual prejudices of a junior engineer?

                                                            1. 2

                                                              why is that a good excuse for manifesto guy to denigrate his co-workers?

                                                              It wouldn’t be one, but that isn’t what he wrote. Please cite, with direct quotes, where he does so. Here, have a copy with the hyperlinks and figures intact.

                                                              Does that mean some of us shouldn’t be in this industry?

                                                              Of course not. Then again, that wasn’t the point the author made in his memo. Please cite where he makes that point.

                                                              […] should they be made to feel unwelcome in their own profession because of the bizarre psyco-sexual [sic] prejudices of a junior engineer?

                                                              I don’t know…if they choose to interpret that memo as unwelcoming (you know, instead of noting all the parts that say things like “hey, maybe we can reward pair programming and work to make the environment less stressful”) there’s not much to be done. Again, please cite the bits that you find unwelcoming and factually incorrect.

                                                              1. 6

                                                                His thesis is that google is too diverse. Or trying to be too diverse. Right? How can a company be too diverse unless some of the diverse people don’t belong?

                                                                Pair programming sounds great, but how does it work if there aren’t any women to pair with? If you divide up into pairs with a guy who codes and a woman who talks, you still need an equal number of women.

                                                                1. 0

                                                                  That wasn’t his thesis, but I can’t tell if you’re trolling or not.

                                                                  1. 1

                                                                    Then I guess I misunderstood it.

                                                            2. 6

                                                              “Strawman” is one of the most overused arguments online, but this is a classical case. Absolutely nobody claims there are no differences between men and women.

                                                              1. 5

                                                                Except of course, lots of people do claim there is no difference between men and women(’s brains):

                                                                One could easily be forgiven by a cursory scan of these articles to assume that is EXACTLY what is being claimed, not some strawman setup here, but a legitimate out in the world idea.

                                                                1. 2

                                                                  Of course they do not. I read the first link you posted - did you read it? Here is the first paragraph.

                                                                  The study, published in the journal PNAS, argues that if there were really such a thing as male and female brains, there wouldn’t be much overlap in the characteristics of the two—people would show either only male or only female characteristics. However, after examining the brains of 1400 people aged 13 to 85 years old in terms of their composition of gray matter, white matter, and connections, the researchers found that very few people were clustered on the extreme ends of the spectrum of features typically associated with males and females. Rather, there was a lot of overlap. *While some features were more common in female brains and others in males, most people have a mix of the two. *

                                                                  People who don’t know any science or statistics are often confused by the difference between distributions of traits and absolute classifications. Is that your issue here?

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    My issue is you claimed the poster used a “strawman” (an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument). I don’t believe it is one, I have been in the room / had it sincerely argued to me.

                                                                    That doesn’t mean I think it is at all accurate, it just means that it is the sincerely held belief of some, not a strawman. The fact that there are literally hundreds of articles about it and fierce debate around it I think validates this perspective.

                                                                    1. 3

                                                                      Really, I have yet to read a single claim that men and women are identical and nobody has been able to link to one. Probably someone believes it, there is a believer in anything, but this argument is not about whether men and women are identical, it is about policies to increase representation of women in engineering and management. Such policies are not based on the theory that there are no difference - the name “diversity” indicates a belief in differences. It is really annoying to see repeated citation or arm wave towards results that show there are differences between men and women as if such, totally uncontroversial information, had any bearing on the efficacy or value of diversity programs.

                                                                2. 1

                                                                  Where in the post you are replying to does the word “strawman” appear? ctrl+f fails me.

                                                                  Unless you are…you know…arguing a point I hadn’t posited there. What was the term for that again?

                                                                  Also, note that the “difference” I’m referring to, in context, was about phrenology and contemporary research:

                                                                  There’s a bit of a difference between Phrenology and the sorts of scientific studies carried out on this topic today. Further, everybody claiming there isn’t a difference is either a) ignorant of the state of current research or b) pushing a false equivalence to further their own agendas for what they believe is correct.

                                                                  1. 4

                                                                    No I was pointing out that your argument uses a strawman: the imaginary people who argue that men and women are identical.

                                                                3. 0

                                                                  “The science isn’t in question, really, by people that actually know the science”

                                                                  And yet, the blog post by SSC you cite begins with an attempt to minimize the conclusions of a peer reviewed article by Hyde.

                                                              1. 8

                                                                Most of the developers at $WORK are remote, and we’re scattered all across the globe. It’s great! We keep in touch via various chat channels, and keep track of work via Jira issues. Every now and then we get the team together somewhere for both socialising and same-room working. The only real downside I can see is that I’m going to be miserable if I have to go back to a commute to another a cubicle farm some day.

                                                                I couldn’t recommend it enough.

                                                                1. 7

                                                                  The only real downside I can see is that I’m going to be miserable if I have to go back to a commute to another a cubicle farm some day.

                                                                  I really hope that 100 years from now we’ll look back on the idea of spending an hour driving thru heavy traffic each way every day with as much disgust and horror as we view drinking from lead pipes in ancient Rome. It’s just so toxic to your psyche.

                                                                  1. 2

                                                                    How do you manage hours of work when you do remote?

                                                                    1. 6

                                                                      Not the OP, but I do work on an all-remote team.

                                                                      We just work 9-5 local time. Sometimes timezones and DST conspire to offset a few of us by an hour or two, but it’s not a big deal. We always have a solid ~5 hours of overlap each day anyway.

                                                                      1. 3

                                                                        I don’t, really. I tend to be “at work” from about 7:30am to 5-7pm ish, but I have a few breaks to work out, run errands, or to just go outside and walk around the block or lie in the hammock for 15 minutes to clear my head when I need to. When I’m blocked on a CI build or getting feedback / direction on an issue, I can go sit outside away from the screens. When you don’t have the pressure to look busy that you get in a cube farm, what might normally seem like a long day doesn’t wreck you like it otherwise might. Ditto being able to wear clothes to work that aren’t a constant physical discomfort :)

                                                                        1. 2

                                                                          Also not the OP, but on a fully remote team.

                                                                          We don’t really manage hours and trust that people are doing the work. Sometimes people will work non-traditional hours but we try to schedule our meetings during overlap hours. I personally am an 8-5er, but others aren’t.

                                                                      1. 5

                                                                        Still working on Hammer. This weekend I cleared a significant hurdle that had been hindering progress, when I realised I could do the main api as a use macro rather than an OTP genserver.

                                                                        1. 4

                                                                          Still banging away on Hammer, a pluggable rate-limiter for Elixir.

                                                                          Progress has been slow (we’ve got a newborn in the house), but I’ve got it to the point where it has fully-working backends for both Redis and ETS, so I just need to polish up the API and write some unit-tests before uploading it to hex.

                                                                          I’ve learned a lot about Elixir, and particularly about OTP in the process of making Hammer, so I think I’m fine with the slow pace of development.

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            Unfortunately, he then moves the number keys into a jumbled-up order so that they’re no longer in incrementing or any other intuitive order. I’m not sure why. (I later found out that this is apparently the original Dvorak number layout which nobody uses.)

                                                                            It’s odd certainly, but the number-layout on programmer-dvorak does make a certain kind of sense once you realise that it places all odd numbers on the left hand, all evens on the right, and does so in such a way that 0 and 1 end up on the index fingers.

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              Dvorak relies on the right hand a lot more, and I was in the strange position of having my right hand get tired pretty quickly for the first couple of weeks.

                                                                              I get this specifically with my right ring and pinky fingers; I can feel a physical strain any time I go from right pinky finger to my right ring finger (especially on different rows). Everywhere else is fine.

                                                                              I think it has something to do with letter combinations for ‘n’, ‘s’, ‘r’, and ‘l’ and their frequencies in the English language.

                                                                              Is your experience similar?

                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                Same experience, after using Programmer-Dvorak for the last four years. I now have significant strain in my right-pinky.

                                                                                However, on qwerty I had major strain in the left hand, so I guess it’s still a win.

                                                                                I’d be open to hearing about a programmer-oriented layout that was more balanced, avoiding strain in any particular finger.

                                                                                1. 1

                                                                                  I tend to simply move/keep my entire right hand a bit more right-ward, thereby using my ring finger instead of my pinky most of the time.

                                                                                1. 2

                                                                                  Still trying to snatch little bits of time to work on a rate-limiter for elixir, but it’s pretty tough with a newborn around.

                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                    I’m hoping to get started on a rate-limiter for Elixir/Erlang with plugabble backends (so you could have the data be persisted to Redis, Mongo, DETS, or whatever)

                                                                                    Only thing that’s stopping me is looking after our newborn ;)