This isn't the pipe operator in elixir. It's from some php derivative language that facebook uses and you shouldn't trust it, because nobody could even show in TC39 that it was sound.
Someone at google didn't like it, and apparently that overrode the entire original intent of the proposal. I'm all for industry participation but I was pulling my hair out with this.
I also pushed for this in TC39 which was shut down for seemingly no reason. Since only one language with almost no user base uses |> to mean expressions, people are guaranteed to get the wrong idea about how it works. It almost seems like intentional misleading.
This is not elixir pipes. Elixir pipes are sound because they are piping to a function. Piping to a statement is not the same thing and it will become more clear in actual usage just how bad these are. Remember % in js is also modulo, and "test" % "ing" returns NaN. NaN is infectious since basically anything that operates on NaN returns NaN. "test" % "ing" + "ana" returns NaNana . You can quickly see how these pipes (as implemented) are so bad they might as well be language sabotage.
These hack pipes are a trojan horse. People wanted elixir/F#/ocaml aka function pipes, and what we got was unreadable line noise. I argued against it until I was blue in the face, decided it was bad for my general wellness to keep it up. I genuinely would prefer no pipes over this. I couldn't find a single example where I preferred it. The token they chose already has a meaning in Javascript! The arrogance and willful disregard for readable code was astonishing. The only tangible reason I could pull as to why they picked the least popular implementation despite all the outrage was "someone at google didn't like the function pipes". Even if you think we should avoid it because some google employee doesn't want it, that doesn't mean you should ram in an even worse implementation. I had to block the TC39 discussion because I was just going to get argumentative because they weren't listening at all, and they were dismissing actual concerns without any explanation.
If your identity doesn't exist, there is nobody to die. It's one of those things that mostly makes sense if you've experienced it. For the record I wouldn't recommend it. Premature annihilation of ego can lead to shunyatta poisoning, or emptiness poisoning. The ego causes issues for sure, but if you kill it before you cultivate a deep understanding of compassion you can easily become a genuine villain.
I mean. I get the ego death thing when I’m mushed out. The phrasing of your statement didn’t quite make sense. I’ve done boomers more times than I can count. I prefer acid. Less introspection.
Yes, and the standard among VCs is to follow social and industry norms. Silicon Valley is an iterated game, and very few players are willing to play in a way that destroys future payoffs.
For as long as any of us can remember, the average person has tried to avoid wasting their time on potentially fruitless pursuits with no joy in the journey.
Shortcuts is not just "skip the useless parts", but also cheat, lose subtlety, lower quality (as in "take shortcuts"), and so on.
In this case "read[ing] articles before commenting on them" is not "wasting their time on potentially fruitless pursuits with no joy in the journey", it's the very basic prerequisite for responding to an article.
And yes, there was a time when this happened less. In the mobile and social era, people are skimming more, jumping around from text to text more, and do focused reading of articles and books less -- this has been studied and written about several times (e.g. here's a high level article from a book author on the subject: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-goog... ).
