Interviews are a thing, no one is hiring people based on self reported claims

> Also, I have ADHD. This is probably relevant, but I haven't quite figured out how.

Yeah, ditto but having been through these ruts many times in the past I can offer some advice

ADHD makes you incapable of settling into easy

You have work to do but it's easy. You have a side project but you've figured out the hard parts and so it's just the implementation grind, which is easy.

Find a challenge

switch your side project to a whole new tech stack. find a new job that you're not quite qualified for. take on job responsibilities at your job that you don't know how to do. mentor someone.

I also find going to meetups and conferences gets the spark back sometimes

> You have a side project but you've figured out the hard parts and so it's just the implementation grind, which is easy.

I found a stupid mind trick for that. If I can't do it, then it isn't easy. I kind of found a satisfaction now in doing boring stuff, feels a bit like a super power. I find it useful at work as well - if there are very boring tasks to do I take them. Team loves me for that and these usually are so "easy" that I have more time to "procrastinate" and e.g. do my own projects as well.

Also about figuring the hard parts - when I start I get hyper focused on these and often I won't stop until I figure something out, that means working even 16 hours a day - which is not healthy! That's why I rather avoid it at work...

So just to clarify your mind hack is turning it back on itself?

Since you can't finish easy tasks, that becomes the challenge, therefore you make yourself finish it and it becomes interesting again because suddenly what was 'easy' in your mind you made yourself realise that it only counts if you finish it and you usually don't so the challenge is to be someone that finishes that stuff?

Sounds about right!

> ADHD makes you incapable of settling into easy

> You have work to do but it's easy. You have a side project but you've figured out the hard parts and so it's just the implementation grind, which is easy.

Oh no. That describes me to a T.

Is there a differential diagnosis for this kind of behavior?

Keep in mind that ADHD is most likely a combination of a number of different factors that'll lead to a diagnosis. Many people exhibit one to even a couple of the factors, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have ADHD.

But if you look up some of the checklists or videos for "do I have ADHD" and seem to fit the bill of quite a few of the factors, it's worth talking to a therapist or psychiatrist who specializes in diagnosing it. There are many people who slip through the cracks in childhood, a lot of times because schools and docs are looking for the Hyperactive side, but many times the Inattentive side gets dismissed by a number of different excuses.

And as others mentioned, if you are diagnosed with it, that doesn't necessarily mean drugs or even therapy, but it can mean a better understanding of things you might struggle with and the reasons for that, which can better prepare you for coming up with healthy strategies rather than negative/unhealthy ones.

A PsyD can assess your focus level using a few diagnostics and if you don’t have other problems that better explain your focus deficit (e.g. PTSD or depression) you will be diagnosed with ADHD.

Talk to your doctor about it. If you can get in with the PsyD the process is pretty easy and non-painful.

The hard part is adapting how you approach the world once you know that you have ADHD, but it’s absolutely worth it.

Also, realistically, having ADHD doesn’t mean you need to start taking meds or changing your life or something. Think of the word “ADHD” as recognizing that theres a class of people who fit these labels, are often predisposed to these issues, and can sometimes be helped by these solutions - it’s only a disorder if it causes problems in your life :)

I'd probably argue that the word disorder applies regardless of whether it causes problems, because ADHD is (as far as we know with current knowledge) pointing toward an actual issue in brain chemistry (compared to non-ADHD), and it's ok to acknowledge that.

That isn't to say people have to use meds/etc. to cope though, I totally agree with the rest of your statement. I just don't think we should imply that the word disorder must be a negative thing. I look at it as purely descriptive.

The fact that it most people think it's a well-defined operation is what makes it a useful question. A total newbie who doesn't know how to code will fumble. A junior engineer will get to the simple solution. A senior engineer will ask you to define it better. Etc... It's an effective tool for determining level because there isn't a limit on how much depth you can go into about it.

I'm jaded enough to imagine that if I ask someone to define it better and try to give a "senior" response that covered codepoints, an interviewer will write down "struggled with simple question".

Edit: That seems consistent with a statement made in another response.

I feel like the best way to tackle questions like these is to first jot down a simple solution and then point out the various ways it doesn't work.

https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/history.rss and https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/history.json work as well.

It's pull rather than push, but you can use the public API to get notified of incidents: https://www.cloudflarestatus.com/api/v2

This was a long time coming. I remember some MS folks talking to Ryan Dahl about doing this back at nodeconf 2011.

What was the inspiration to create yet another compile to JS language?

I guess I wanted macros and pattern matching without Lisp syntax, and I wanted to retain and use the JS/node ecosystem.

There's also a few language features I couldn't find anywhere else that I wanted to try out (my % operator, ad hoc exception classes, some pattern matching features like coercion and "match" inside a pattern to define sub-patterns, the each operator, some features of the macro system that I have yet to document, etc.)

It's kind of fun, really.

What does the % operator formally do? All I could find in the documentation was :

> Earl Grey's % operator can be used to easily build HTML, DOM, virtual DOM, and other things:

There are examples below that statement for common usage, but if you want a deeper understanding:

    tag.xyz %
       property = value
       child1
       child2

Will produce the data structure:

    {tags = {"tag", ".xyz"}
     props = {property = value}
     children = {child1, child2}}

as an instance of the ENode class. Then, transformer functions can process the data structure to generate HTML or other things, e.g.

    require: /html
    html(thing)
    ==> <tag class="xyz" property="value">child1child2</tag>

Because folks feel there is a need for them, and it's a really good way to get one's feet wet in the compiler pound. Besides, a programming language (dialect) is to a programmer what different size wenches, pipes, or hoes are to a plumber. You need different tools for different jobs and a lot of it depends on your personal preference and what it will take you to be efficient. Besides, how we as engineers solve problems is just as much an expression of our personality as it is a statement about the correct operation of systems. But that's just my view, and I'm definitely biased on the subject because I'm working on a flavor of coffeescript that will compile to msft's typescript as we speak (well, in my spare time).

The ubiquity of the browser one would expect.

The DOM is to slow on mobile issue is what spawned http://famo.us/. They go beyond virtual DOM by creating their own layout engine that then outputs to optimized DOM (or canvas/WebGL).

React also has its own implementation of the Flex layout system. Implemented in JavaScript and C++ (for react native).

I built an app when that first came out, and it was literally insane. Not in a good way. 100 lines of code to make a 'view' (their version of a div).

The typing notation of TypeScript is on it's way to becoming part of Javascript. See http://www.2ality.com/2014/10/typed-javascript.html

Going forward does not mean abandoning Javascript, just abandoning ES5

I don't foresee type annotations being standardized any time soon. The resistance to that is going to be fierce.

Brendan Eich made the following comment here recently:

" Indeed we had structural types in ES4 toward the end, and almost bluffed MS into folding (I'm told by a reliable source). But ES4 was trying for too much too soon. At this point we really need to see ES6/7 and TypeScript + Flow "gene- culture co-evolution". As I said at the last TC39 meeting on the topic, big de-facto standard wins trump rushed de-jure standards any day. /be"

and also:

" Type system implementors and the JS stewards must communicate well for this to win. It's looking good so far, on Ecma TC39: JQuery, Facebook, Netflix, PayPal (Ebay originally, and again), Twitter all represented along with Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla. Also academic researchers from various universities, all of whom love type systems and theory :-)."

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8906807

They left out the most obvious reason for them to switch. Their business is based on docker, coreOS etc . . . aka the Go ecosystem. In that context developing Go expertise just makes business sense regardless of technical merits.