You're assuming that QA is a good way to discuss a topic in depth.
Personally, I don't. (IMHO) Stack exchange is great for technical
support, and quick research into questions - not so great for discussing
topics in depth.
For the avowed purpose of influenc(ing) and foster(ing) interest, in
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 8:36 AM, Miles Fidelman mfidel...@meetinghouse.net
wrote:
You're assuming that QA is a good way to discuss a topic in depth.
I believe you're misreading Julian. AFAICT, he's said nothing about the
utility of the discussions on each site.
QA can be good for depth - see
For anybody interested in this sort of site: I while ago I found myself
asking for something more frequently updated and less-demanding of a math
degree than LtU, but without all the silicon valley VC navelgazing of
HN. A friend pointed me to https://lobste.rs/ which so far seems to have a
nice
David Barbour wrote:
A proposed stack exchange for programming language theory has reached
commitment phase. It needs two hundred people. If you're interested in
PL, please participate:
For those not aware of it, the starting point for discussions of
programming language theory is
Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages. I'm
not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's incredibly
difficult to parse.
J
http://www.getcontented.com.au/ - You Need GetContented - Get Your Website
Happy. :)
On 28 Sep 2014, at 12:37 am, Miles
How so Julian? Hehe.
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Julian Leviston jul...@leviston.net
wrote:
Hehe that's interesting. I'd never associated LTU with modern languages.
I'm not sure why. Possibly because of the archaic UX and UI. It's
incredibly difficult to parse.
J
