This is a little odd to me - I generally prefer to write my math in code if its going to be executed. I find my preferences to be pen and paper (or whiteboard)> latex, so perhaps I am not the target demographic here.
Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
21–30 of 136 posts
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#22This looks neat. Writing tip for the person speaking (or captioning): starting a sentence with "so" makes you come off like...something I don't have the word for, but it's bad. Don't do it. Condescending? Demeaning? It's like you don't think your audience is capable of following. I had to stop watching after four sentences in a row started that way.
Or we could not police people's language. "So" is a way to start sentences; like anything else, it can be overused. Just like "like", etc. There's a good podcast episode from John Mcwhorter on this "So" phenomenon. [0] TL;DL It has some interesting applications (including functioning as a discourse marker), and isn't going away anytime soon. [0]: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/john-mcwhorter-on-s...
So, it's interesting it goes that far back.
Update: the language log says it goes back before the 1850s. With an early peak around 1870.
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#23This "Atlas Engineering" is an unfortunate name conflict with the developers of the Nyxt browser: https://atlas.engineer
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#24I guess the overlap between physicists/engineers and type system/PLT people isn’t large enough.
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#25This "Atlas Engineering" is an unfortunate name conflict with the developers of the Nyxt browser: https://atlas.engineer
Seems like they're associated with the development of Nyxt since they link to Nyxt here -> https://source.atlas.engineer/
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#26Tracking units is a thing that I rarely have a use for (as a non-engineer), but when I do, I’m totally mystified by how bad almost every language is at it. F# is the only actual programming language I found that even tries. It does a pretty decent job, but even it has some disappointing holes (e.g. not being able to understand g and kg as scaled versions of the same dimension). I guess the overlap between physicists/…
Is there something that I'm missing here?
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#27Tracking units is a thing that I rarely have a use for (as a non-engineer), but when I do, I’m totally mystified by how bad almost every language is at it. F# is the only actual programming language I found that even tries. It does a pretty decent job, but even it has some disappointing holes (e.g. not being able to understand g and kg as scaled versions of the same dimension). I guess the overlap between physicists/…
Isn't the "newtype" pattern something that addresses this issue elegantly? Is there something that I'm missing here?
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#28> Write equations; not code This is a little odd to me - I generally prefer to write my math in code if its going to be executed. I find my preferences to be pen and paper (or whiteboard)> latex, so perhaps I am not the target demographic here.
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#29Tracking units is a thing that I rarely have a use for (as a non-engineer), but when I do, I’m totally mystified by how bad almost every language is at it. F# is the only actual programming language I found that even tries. It does a pretty decent job, but even it has some disappointing holes (e.g. not being able to understand g and kg as scaled versions of the same dimension). I guess the overlap between physicists/…
Re: Atlas, a hopefully better engineering IDE
#30Tracking units is a thing that I rarely have a use for (as a non-engineer), but when I do, I’m totally mystified by how bad almost every language is at it. F# is the only actual programming language I found that even tries. It does a pretty decent job, but even it has some disappointing holes (e.g. not being able to understand g and kg as scaled versions of the same dimension). I guess the overlap between physicists/…
Isn't the "newtype" pattern something that addresses this issue elegantly? Is there something that I'm missing here?
radius = 15 [mm]
area = pi*radius^3
force = 100 [N]
def will_i_blow_up(pressure [Pa]):
if(pressure > 1 [Gpa]):
return "Oh no it blew up"
will_i_blow_up( force/area )
should raise an error like "UnitsException, [N/mm^3] is not compatible with [Pa]". I could then look over my code and realize I should have written: area = pi*radius^2