Snowboarding for Geeks - <AUTHOR> https://www.xfive.co/blog/snowboarding-ultimate-guide/ <comment><USER3> Snowboarding absolutely is as fun as it looks, but don't underestimate how much it's going to hurt the day after. I've gone nearly a dozen times and I still end up bruised by the end of the day. Admittedly, I'm a bit clumsier than most, but I've never collided with another human being at least.

Also, I was surprised that the article didn't mention the one aspect that I actually found way harder than anything else to learn do reliably: going from sitting to standing on the board with your feet strapped in is HARD. I thought it was something I'd be able to learn through technique since I'm mostly in shape from a cardio perspective, but I just don't have the core strength to get up the proper way.

While I absolutely could never once manage to get up with my heels dug into the snow, I can easily get up from my toes. It sort of stinks though because I'm never facing downhill when I first get up, so I can't really see great downhill, but at least I know when people are coming behind me.

The obvious solution to the standing problem is just to fall less, but I haven't quite figured that out. So instead I've tried to do more lunges when I exercise. Probably won't be enough though.

<comment><USER4> I skateboarded regularly for approx. 15 years before my first snowboarding trip. I was certain that all my time on a skateboard would prepare me, and I'd pick it up easy. How wrong I was. Fell more times than I could count that day.

<comment><USER5> > I skateboarded regularly for approx. 15 years before my first snowboarding > trip.

Same! I went for the first time earlier this year. I plopped around for about a half day, but by the end of the second day I was doing some easier blues without too much problems.

I think the one thing skateboarding helped most with was being comfortable riding sideways. Also backside powersliding (carving?) is one of the most amazing feelings on a snowboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Some of the geekiest people I know have become the best skiers/snowboarders on the mountain. I know a guy who used to regularly show up to the terrain park and do double frontflips over 60 foot jumps. He's got a PHD in physics now.

I know another guy who used to compete in big air competitions. Senior iOS developer.

My friend Brian does double cork 10s. Medical doctor.

This sport is for nerds. If you're nerdy, you have an even greater chance of being successful at it because you know how to focus on getting great at something.

<comment> GuB-42 Senior iOS developer, medical doctor,...

The common ground is not just geekiness, it is money. Skiing is expensive, and in order to get good, you need to practice a lot.

I am curious to know how nerdy skateboarders are. Skateboarding and snowboarding share some similarities, but the former is much more affordable.

<comment><USER6> I dunno. I actually don't think it's all that expensive of a sport if you can invest in your equipment and keep it long term. Sure, you'll spend a few grand one season for a setup that will last you three or four seasons. The season pass will set you back another $600 per year roughly.

I've had my current setup for five seasons. Same board. Same boots. Same jacket, helmet, pants, etc. If I do a back of the envelope calculation, my sport probably costs me $1,000 per year on average.

There really is such a thing as competence, work ethic, and patience. These traits tend to lead to success in other areas of life, including the accumulation of wealth and advancement in one's career. Not everything can, or should, be explained by privilege. Great people really do earn their greatness.

<comment><USER7> > It's not that expensive

> you'll spend a few grand ... 1000 dollars a year

Pick one

<comment><USER8> It's expensive but I did it in college when I made a spare $250 a month.

Old Volvo 240, used gear, waterproof running pants with sweats underneath that I already owned. Total cost of entry was a few hundred dollars.

It's much better with expensive top-notch gear but so is everything else. And it's still cheaper than skiing.

Twenty years later cheap gear is radically improved and there's a much bigger used market. And if you live near Seattle you can hitch a ride with me to Stevens whenever.

If you don't want to pay for lift tickets you can get used split-board and avalanche gear and take an avalanche safety class for about a one-time $1500 expense and walk up mountains for free instead, even at resorts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My 2 cents for beginners, most of these are covered in the article:

1\. Get a flying-v or CamRock - makes turning easier and will hold an edge better until you figure out how to carve.

2\. Don't put your feet perpendicular to the board, you want some angle, 30° Front, 15° Back. It will make it easier to square your shoulders down the hill and get your weight on the front of your edge.

3\. Start on a Blue slope. Seriously. I hate seeing beginners exhausting themselves on green slopes straining to get enough speed to get on edge and then catching the opposite edge because there is not enough slope.

<comment><USER10> I've been snowboarding for 12 years, done many 120+ day seasons, and I'm a certified Level 2 instructor in Canada, have done the course for Level 3, need to take the exam. (There are only 4 levels).

I don't love all your advice.

1\. Sure, marketing gimmicks are great, and you're right, it will help a little. Learning good technique will help a lot more. Learn how to control the edge and how to turn the board when you want to turn the board.

2\. 30 front and 15 rear is too much of a difference, which means you'll never learn switch, and things will feel wrong when the board accidentally goes the wrong way (beginners get this all the time). WAAAAY better to go something like 18 front and 12 rear. i.e. it's like 15/15 duck, but then move both of them forward 3 degrees.

CASI (Canadian Association Of Snowboard Instructors) are fine if you want to go "forward facing" like your 30 front foot, but you have to do it all the time if you want to pass any exams, which gets hard. It's not a good footing to build your snowboarding career from (excuse the pun)

3\. No. Three thousand times no. Then another thousand times. (I'm not trying to be a jerk, but you just failed your CASI Level 1 instructor exam.)

One of the biggest parts of the level 1 instructor exams is terrain selection, for very good reason. It depends a lot on the temperature at the time, and the snow conditions, but more often than not you do not want a blue slope for a never-ever. Find a green slope that does NOT go off to either side. ie. you roll a snowball down it, the snowball goes straight down the middle, it doesn't veer off to either side.

If you go too steep, your students will be terrified of the "dead zone" when they are between edges and pointing down the fall line, because they will accelerate and be afraid. That's how you teach people to go top to bottom on one edge, which is not what we want.

You MUST pick a suitable slope so the student is not afraid to actually make turns, otherwise they'll never progress. I see this in students all the time who say "I can snowboard" and they go down pretty fast, all the while standing perfectly still on their heel edge.

For what it's worth, I had been snowboarding for 5 or 6 years before I took an instructor course. Before the course I would aggressively go down all the double-black runs on the mountain, as fast as anyone, and fell rarely. During the Level 1 course my mind was blown, my snowboarding was torn back to square one and I have been building on a correct foundation ever since. It's like a whole new sport, and I fell in love with it all over again. The title of this post caught my attention because I'm a Geek who learns and does things very intellectually. I highly, highly recommend taking an instructor course, even if you never intend to teach. It's the cheapest lessons from a _very_ experienced instructor you'll ever get.

<comment><USER11> > If you go too steep, your students will be terrified of the "dead zone" when > they are between edges and pointing down the fall line, because they will > accelerate and be afraid. That's how you teach people to go top to bottom on > one edge, which is not what we want.

100% correct on this one (obviously, you're an instructor). I find the hardest/scariest part of people learning snowboarding OR skiing is the point in the middle of a turn when they have to face downhill and start to pick up speed.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely, the beginner linked turns are some of the hardest in snowboarding.

Usually the trick is to get them to point and look _across_ the hill (not down the fall line) so a) they won't get scared and b) they'll go across and make the turn, rather than rocketing down!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As a skier who only took a beginning level instructor and then learned by myself for multiple seasons - take as many instructor hours as you can, even if can already ride down black slopes. Seriously, last year I took an advanced instructor and it was a revelation. Take instructor even when you think you don't need him and don't listen to your friends joking about it.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. Been skiing since I was 3 (so my father tells me), and learnt to snowboard 20 years ago when I was 30. I went into a shop in the Austrian Alps (St. Johann am Pongau), hired a board and boots, found myself an instructor and had an hours' 1:1 lesson. Never had another instructor since but got to teach three people to 'board on Mount Baker, WA.

But for about 2 years now I've been wondering what I don't yet know that an instructor night teach me. So I'm going to get me an instructor when I next go in Jan.

<comment><USER12> As a skier I discovered that while I could ride down red slopes and struggle down black slopes I did almost everything wrong. Wrong upper body position, wrong body movement in turns, wrong weight balance in turns, wrong pressure application on the ski, etc. We did some exercises with impairments too - <USER2> hand movement or with open boot bindings to understand certain things and it really did help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I like seeing guides like this for newcomers. It's pretty funny, though, to see Architecture Astronauts try to find similarities between any two activities, no matter how different:

"__ can resonate with the geek inside us because it has gadgets, it requires systematic approach to our own progress and it provides a lot of satisfaction and fun we typically find in the creative process."

Is there any human endeavor which could _not_ fill the blank here?

</comment><comment><USER15> Riding hardboots since the 90's. Lots of gear tweakers in that scene. People treating their clothing with certain kinds of stuff they treat sails with to not rip them to shreds when doing continuous laid down linked turns, boots modifications for extra flexibility _, experimenting with all kinds of shapes and materials and hours and hours of talk about edge pressure.

_ I tried Driver X boots for example. Way to rigid compared to the forward flex of my hardboots!

<comment><USER10> I'm a softbooter who has thought about switching over because I love carving more than any other aspect.

This guy [1] is basically my hero, and I'm slowly working towards it. My brother just got a custom board with 290mm waist width, I'm going to get a 320 or 330mm for my size 12 feet.

[1] [https://youtu.be/cBo9bB1cXOo?t=111](https://youtu.be/cBo9bB1cXOo?t=111)

<comment><USER15> I like Casper Carver and the Swoard guys. Casper uses mid '90's stuff like asyms but it fits his style.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQBXNum6l_M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQBXNum6l_M) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmfUjxM_NOQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmfUjxM_NOQ)

I can link turns laid down on a good day on a good slope but it's not even half as nice as what they do.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, that's nice, but remember that's hard boots, on a carving board, with a forward facing stance.

The trick is doing that with soft boots!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've found snowboarding sucks compared to skiing if your skiing in somewhat consistently icey conditions like we have here at Tahoe. Getting kneepads definitely made it less painful, since it's easy to trip over your toe edge onto your knees when you turn into a groove on ice.

<comment><USER17> > I've found snowboarding sucks compared to skiing if your skiing in somewhat > consistently icey conditions

You should try New England :) I'd add that skiing is superior if you're doing a lot of backcountry traversing as well. The only remedy is to either learn to ski or get a split board (which will set you back $800+).

<comment><USER18> While I agree that backcountry travel, in general, is easier on skis you're going to shell out more money for an AT ski setup then you will for a splitboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wear a helmet! I had some nasty falls learning!

<comment><USER20> I was going recommend also wearing a mouthguard, because I've always felt like they reduced the head trauma I experience if I fell, but a quick literature search indicates that their efficacy for that purpose may not be well- validated. :/

<comment><USER3> I'll need to try that next time. I've had some really hard spills, and the sound/feeling of teeth clacking together as my head (always in a helmet) hit the ground was definitely the most disconcerting aspect of the fall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Lots of great comments here about snowboarding so I figured I'd provide my two cents. I tried skiing a couple of times and ended up just not having much fun. Eventually decided to try out snowboarding. It felt like I had gotten hit by a car the next day.

But there was something about it that seemed promising, so I stuck with it. The initial learning curve is _really_ steep. I was a far better skier after far less effort at the same point than snowboarding. But after keeping at it a few times I finally got parts of it to "click". I'm still terrible, but I rarely fall now and can generally make it down most blue slopes without too much fuss, something I really struggled with on skis.

It works far more of your core muscles and your quads and hamstrings that skiing does, so it takes some time to figure out how to control all that with the precision.

The key for me was to really understand that the board itself wasn't something I rode on top of, but instead of was a living vessel I was part of, and that I could twist, rotate and otherwise manipulate using movements in my legs, subtle shifts in center of balance and core muscles. Once that started to make sense it became much easier and I found it far easier and more rewarding that skiing for me.

Skiing is many moving parts you have to coordinate, snowboarding is one moving part with many subtle means of expression. It's a bit like the difference between playing a drumkit and playing a violin if that makes sense for any musicians.

<comment><USER22> I mean no offence, but I think a few of these opinions are probably because of your skill level on both a snowboard and skis.

> It works far more of your core muscles and your quads and hamstrings that > skiing does, so it takes some time to figure out how to control all that > with the precision.

If you're skiing hard, the core and quads are fully engaged. Especially in deep snow. In fact, I suspect that you need more engagement on skis.

> The key for me was to really understand that the board itself wasn't > something I rode on top of, but instead of was a living vessel I was part > of, and that I could twist, rotate and otherwise manipulate using movements > in my legs, subtle shifts in center of balance and core muscles. Once that > started to make sense it became much easier and I found it far easier and > more rewarding that skiing for me.

Everything you said here about snowboarding applies to skiing, however it takes longer for that to click on skis because there's more to coordinate.

> Skiing is many moving parts you have to coordinate, snowboarding is one > moving part with many subtle means of expression.

I definitely agree with the sentiment of one moving part with subtle means of expression, but when you get good at skiing, it starts to feel more like one moving part.

This is my experience as someone who snowboarded for 15ish years before switching to skiing a few years ago.

<comment><USER21> Your comments are totally fair and I do not take any offense at all. Appreciate the other points of view!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I started skiing as a kid, switched to snowboarding as a teenager, then started skiing again now in my mid-30s. Picking up skiing again after ~20 years was a lot of fun; nice to feel like I'm learning something new again but still know how snow feels and mountains work.

From my own experience, and watching a number of other friends, the first 2-3 days of skiing is easier than the first 2-3 days of snowboarding.

These days I'll happily ski/board most places on most mountains (in-resort, at least) but if I'm getting into technical terrain will vastly prefer a snowboard.. much quicker recovery time if you fall, often you can just bounce back up w/out fully stopping. I'd argue that snowboards are more fun in the pow as well.. skis are great for the hard-and-fast groomer days!

If you're a nerd, and you like skiing / boarding, then check out ski touring / splitboarding. Add backcountry travel, navigation, skin track setting, & most importantly avalanche / snow safety, and you've got a sport that is almost endless in terms of things to learn & keep in mind while you're out and about. And it's excellent exercise while you're at it!

</comment><comment><USER24> You will fall on your butt more times than you would like the first time you try it. Knowing this plan accordingly. Schedule your first lessons for a day with good, firm but not hard snow, snow that is a bit like solid styrofoam. Falling on snow like that doesn't hurt, but beware of a fresh dusting of flakes over hard packed icy base beneath.

I found that once you've learned snowboarding that it works really well on many conditions from icy to powder, groomed and ungroomed. The trails do make a difference though. Skiers can manage narrow trails or catwalks easily no matter the slope. Snowboarding these tails can be difficult because boarders need to maintain enough speed to make it though the flat spots (no poles!) while not having much room to burn off excess speed by traversing the fall line, especially when there are lots of skiers traveling at a modest pace with their poles. Also moguls aren't much fun for me on a board. Skiers have a tighter turning radius and the resulting mogul fields end up difficult for me on a board (I'm sure good boarders handle them just fine, but I can't).

<comment><USER25> First, too many boarders do not wax their boards frequently enough, if at all. It is really easy to do and unless the snow is super sticky spring stuff you can fly by skiiers on flats and traverses (or course, know how to hold and edge before doing that and don't pass without being sure you have room). Catwalks, speed just not a good idea.

You really need to get out there and learn to do moguls. It will improve your boarding considerably. Start with a lesson or two and target days you know the bumps aren't ice boulders. Technique varies but common is always keep moving (you'll learn to hate the skiers who stop every four turns in front of you).

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Note:

> Skiing and snowboarding does have a reputation of being a risky sport, but > the overall injury rate for skiers is a little lower than you may expect > with 3 injuries per 1000 skier days. Put another way, if you ski 20 days a > year, on average you'll sustain an injury every 16-17 years. Snowboarders > have a higher injury risk with a reported 4-16 injuries per 1000 snowboarder > days.

Source: [https://www.premax.co/au/blog/recent-statistics-on-skiing- an...](https://www.premax.co/au/blog/recent-statistics-on-skiing-and- snowboarding-injuries)

See also: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1303417/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1303417/)

And: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492000/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2492000/)

</comment><comment><USER27> This is the kind of content I come to HN for. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> I never thought I'd see a fusion of these two, but I am so happy it's here!

Snowboarding has been my connection with nature since I was a kid. When I finished my Eagle Scout project and moved to the city, I was left with this hole for nature that needed to be filled.

Now as an adult living in a city, my reconnection with nature is through snowboarding. Once I started riding deep powder in Canada, Japan, and Europe, my life changed.

There are few things in my life more awe-inspiring than a fresh pow day and untouched trails. And until you've experienced it, it's very difficult to describe that feeling you get when touching nature in a way few experience.

My grandfather skied until he was 89. I hope to make it that far as well.

ALSO, my first job was working in a ski shop as a kid. And I totally geek out about snowboarding gear, so I'm happy to make recommendations to anyone here looking for board/boots/bindings/accessories/clothing gear/backcountry items/etc.

If you do decide to head into the backcountry, take an AIARE level 1 avalanche course, and be sure to buy a pole, shovel, and transponder: [http://aiare.info/providers_list.php](http://aiare.info/providers_list.php)

FINALLY, tips after reading through the whole beginner recommendation chart:

* TAKE LESSONS. LOTS OF THEM. They may be expensive, but an immersive 2/3 day lesson plan will rapidly accelerate your learning. The less you know, the more you fall. The more days you fall, the more pain you're in. Save your ass (literally) and just take as many lessons as you can afford until you're linking turns and carving down the mountain. Then take more :)

* GEARTRADE.COM - This site looks like it was made in 2002 but they have the best deals. A lot of the Backcountry.com returns get sent here, so it's basically like-new quality for a fraction of the cost.

* For a board, get a true twin. If I could go back and learn all over again, I'd learn switch as quickly as I learned regular. A twin board helps immensely.

* Boots matter probably even more than the board and bindings. If you're gonna drop cash, drop them here and in the clothes so you stay warm/dry.

* DO NOT GET STEP-IN BINDINGS. Even the 2nd gen of Burton step-ins are improved, but people still have problems with them. The ease you get (even with the Flow bindings) doesn't make up for the lack of contact/feel you get with traditional bindings. The analogy I think of is like a Tesla - yeah you could get autonomous driving capabilities, but it's just not there yet. Save your money and wait a few more years before putting all of your faith in this system.

* It's easy to get caught up in the Burton hype. Burton is a very holistic company in that they can get you a board/boots/bindings/clothes. And they're not a bad company. It's just that there are also a lot of other great companies that make stuff as well.

* Get bib pants. Even if you aren't riding pow in the backcountry, trust me. Bibs provide more freedom of movement, you never have to worry about bringing a belt or it snapping/breaking on a ride, and even if you're on a trail and you eat it, you could still get snow up your back.

* DON'T OVERSPEND ON GLOVES. Someone will try and justify Gore Tex Hestras to you. Just pick up KINCO 901 SKI MITTENS. There's a reason every ski patrol and service person wears them. They're cheap (<$20), durable as hell, and can be waterproofed with bee's wax in about 1 hour.

* Don't wear cotton. Always prefer poly base layers and down/fleece mid layers. They can be had for very cheap at the basement outlet stores (TJMaxx, Marshalls, etc).

* On that note, YMMV but if you layer properly, you basically have 0 need for an insulated jacket. That saves you money to spend higher on outer layers that focus on waterproofing. Plus you can use that uninsulated shell as a rain jacket in the sprint/summer.

* Goggles are another thing to spend up on. The last thing you want is compromised vision. Get goggles that have interchangeable lenses (I prefer the Electric EG3 for super wide visibility and easy/cheap interchangeable lenses). GET 1 FOR CLOUDY/DARK AND 1 FOR SUNNY/BRIGHT. Don't worry about mirrored lenses; if you can afford to spend up on polarized it will help in bright conditions, but for cloudy it won't matter, though generally yellow is considered the best lens color for dark conditions (superior to amber and rose).

* I highly recommend the YouTube subscriptions mentioned. SnowboardProCamp and Snowboarding Addiction are awesome instructional videos. Ryan Knapton has the best buttering technique as I've ever seen.

* Yes, buttering is a thing. And it's awesome.

<comment><USER25> Boots are very important (certainly your feet must feel good in them) but they can't be viewed in isolation. While I think we are past the days of Herman Munster boots, you still need to be careful to match your boot to both the binding and board. You'll want to be able to take full advantage of your binding while not ending up with toe or heel drag.

Board choice is also important, especially for a beginner. Worst mistake a novice can make is getting a board that is too stiff or (and it usually goes hand in hand) one with too large a turning radius.

Besides don't get step-ins, I would avoid Flow bindings as well. They are convenient until they aren't :)

When buying goggles, ALWAYS BRING YOUR HELMET. If you have only one choice of lens color (because of $) get yellow or the lightest mirrored orange/amber. Bluebird days will be a little bright but there are usually more cloudy days and shadows come early in the winter. Depth perception is the key.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Playing a snowboarding video game — after having gone snowboarding once — was very helpful for me. Seeing how the avatar lifted the edges of his board while turning helped me understand what I'd been doing wrong and made me a much better snowboarder the second time around.

Watching YouTube videos would probably serve a similar purpose, but the interactivity of the game made it especially useful for me (besides, YouTube didn't exist when I learned in the late 90s). For the record, I played 1080 Snowboarding on the Dreamcast, may it rest in peace. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080%C2%B0_Snowboarding](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080%C2%B0_Snowboarding)

<comment><USER29> Last year I bought a copy of Steep for my son (he was 7). First day in our Christmas vacation, he thought he could to a 360, just like in the video game, he landed on his nose. We stayed for a week in the resort watching snowboard on youtube. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> +1. Always wanted to learn to Ski not having been exposed to snow early on but was told that Snowboarding is easier than Skiing for absolute beginners. Perhaps this time i can actually get some proper lessons. Timing couldn't be perfect!. Thanks.

<comment><USER31> _> but was told that Snowboarding is easier than Skiing for absolute beginners._

I think the "easier" depends on the target skill level.

Skiiing is easier to achieve a _beginner_ skill level. Absolute beginners can point their toes inward and ski "pizza wedges" down easy hills rated as "green" within a few hours. Indeed, many skiiers including adults never leave this stage. But upgrading the skills to _intermediate level_ requires changing the technique to shift the body weight to the _edges_ of the skis. This shift can take weeks.

Snowboarding learning curve is the opposite. It's harder to get going as a beginner because you must balance on alternating _edges_ of the board to even make the simplest basic turns. But the payoff is that you can graduate to intermediate and advanced slopes (the blues and black rated trails) much faster.

<comment><USER32> Would you say knowing how to skateboard makes snowboarding easier? I'm planning on trying one of these this winter for the first time and I'm hoping some biking/skateboarding balance transfers over.

<comment><USER33> Yes for some things, no for others. General board control, stance, balance, body movement for some tricks, etc: skateboarding definitely helps. There are some things that will feel unnatural at first though if you have skateboarded for a long time:

1) You want your weight biased towards your front foot on a snowboard, when you get competent at riding you will be doing a lot of control with the front foot. This is the opposite to skateboarding, where leaning on the front leg will cause you to fall over very quickly.

2) Toeside turns on a snowboard are utterly counterintuitive because there's no real mapping to anything on a skateboard (unlike heelside which could be considered like a fs powerslide on a skateboard) - you have to push your shins into your boots. Maybe it's a bit like carving on a longboard, but not so much.

The whole turning thing is the main difference - on a snowboard you use your front foot and your edges, on a skateboard you just pivot on the trucks.

(Source: 20 years as a skateboarder, now spend about 30 days a year on the slopes instead).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you're a snowboard romantic, I HIGHLY suggest listening to the "How I built this" podcast episode with Jake Burton, the founder of Burton snowboards.

It's an incredibly moving and honest look at the beginnings of the sport.

<comment><USER35> Jake Carpenter according to apple podcast app.

<comment><USER36> For context his full name is Jake Burton Carpenter, the company is his middle name.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is a great in-depth guide. I wonder if there's anything like it for skiing. I'm a life-long skier and about the only thing that seems appealing about snowboards to me is the more comfortable boots.

</comment><comment><USER38> I grew up waterskiing, so when I moved to the mountains, I thought I'd pick up snow skiing easily.

I did o.k., but after a few years I still hadn't gotten that "flow".

After a few years of skiing, I tried boarding and got "flow" the second day when there was 12 inches of fresh pow, even though I still sucked at it.

Immediately switched and haven't looked back. Several years later, it dawned on me that waterskiing is done on a single ski, so it is much closer to snowboarding. Your feet are just at a different angle. Seems obvious in hindsight.

<comment><USER39> > it dawned on me that waterskiing is done on a single ski

Isn't waterskiing on a single ski called wakeboarding? Where I grew up in Florida plenty of people waterskiied on 2 skis.

<comment><USER38> You learn on 2, then move to 1 aka slalom as you have far more manuverability.

Wakeboards and skurfers (if those are still around) are wider than a slalom ski and don't have both feet facing forward. They are closer to a snowboard.

But I find the most fun behind a boat is on a regular surfboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> After having a titanium plate surgically attached to my wrist, I heartily recommend sitting in the lodge by the fireplace and playing Alto's Adventure instead.

</comment><comment><USER41> My main tip is to get good at falling without hurting yourself, which mostly means don't stand up too straight. Stay a bit crouched, even when going straight. Then, if you do catch an edge, you won't get quite the body slam, and it'll be easier to get up and try again. The downside is this will burn out your quads.

</comment><comment><USER42> Surprised such a comprehensive guide for geeks didn't get into bluetooth headphones! As a rider for a few years now, I've had good luck with the headphone inserts which fit into most helmets. Riding with your favorite music truly feels like playing the best of games and sports combined.

<comment><USER43> How many seasons do those things last? I thought about buying some, but the i felt like the batteries would die over summer, and I'd be lucky to get more than one season out of them.

<comment><USER44> The Chips Helmet Audio has lasted me over 8 seasons and going strong. I don't maintain the batteries (I believe they should be stored with a 75% charge during off season) and still get enoigh charge for 2 full days of riding.

<comment><USER43> Might have to get some. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I don't know the first thing about snowboarding (despite living in one of the snowiest cities in the US), but this seems like a fantastic guide. Hits just the right level of detail to get you started without being totally overwhelming. Does anyone know of similar guides for other hobbies?

</comment><comment><USER46> Is there an equivalent for skiing?

<comment><USER47> If you fine one, I'm very interested. Please share.

This article has great content! But at best I'm amateur skier not a snowboarder.

<comment><USER48> There is so much to geek out on with skiing, probably much like anything new.

A few years ago I moved to Austria. Last year my young son wanted to start skiing, so in my mid-40s I'm also learning.

The amount of time I researched which skis and boots to buy would easily be above 40 hours. Then searching the Internet for the best bargains again added more time.

Pretty much after just one season, I'm now into waxing my own skis. Another total geek activity. So many different waxes for different conditions.

Then watching the weather and trying to figure out where the best snow will be for next weekend, that has to qualify as geek.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I got my passion for snowboard with 26. I got to get myself busy somehow during Winter time on the Swiss/French Alps.

However nowadays I seldom do it, as I fear to suffer a 2nd injury and recovery from the first one wasn't that fun.

</comment><comment><USER50> Yes! Go snowboarding! You'll never be as good as the guys in the videos but you'll definitely be able to feel what they feel! Super fun!

</comment><comment><USER51> Wish they had the same article for skiing!

</comment><comment> jim-greer +1 for heat fitted boots. If you find that your feet are hurting, fit is key.

</comment><comment><USER52> How it is targeting geeks in particular?

</comment><comment><USER53> Would be nice to be able to get my carve somewhat close to Knapton's at some point in my existence.

</comment><comment><USER54> I have snowboarded for 20 years.

Wear a helmet.

Seriously WEAR A HELMET.

<comment><USER25> Its funny but the way I tell western riders is they rarely wear helmets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> TL;DR As a former instructor and full-time programmer:

1 Get a lesson. Keep your knees bent, lead your turns with your arm and front knee.

2 Blues are easier to learn on then greens because the pitch helps you stay up. I have gotten overweight / out of shape older guys from LA, that have never even seen snow, to be confident riders in a day using this trick and the 'falling leaf' method.

3 The first two days will be painful generally, stick with it because once it 'clicks' you will have so much fun!

<comment><USER25> I'm not a certified instructor but have taken out many a novice the past 20 years. I'm not fond of the 'lead with your arm' point as I've seen way too many beginners with arms flopping all over the place and instead prefer arms and hands kept quietly at the sides. If they get into high speed or euro-style carving, then yes arm positioning is more in play.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Snowboarding is an ass-buster. Someone needs to invent an air bag for the rear.

<comment><USER57> They have them actually. Well, not the air bag, but they have pants with padding. My friend cracked his tailbone riding, and I said, "screw that" and spent the money on Demon FlexForce pants. Best money I ever spent (well outside of the helmet).

<comment><USER56> Yes! an ass-helmet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Anyone have a similar guide for skiing?

</comment><comment> e-m-p This is an awesome guide!</comment>


Ask HN: What's the most easy-to-learn framework? - <AUTHOR>

I primarily program in PHP. Over the last three years, I have tried to learn various frameworks(rails, cakephp, symfony) only to give up after a couple days.
I feel like I am too used to my current development process yet I know that my current process is probably not the most efficient, time-wise and quality-wise. I have my own little framework I've naturally developed. But it is still a hassle to setup a new project with it. At the same time, I find difficult to adjust to the database magic that frameworks do.
So I am set on learning a framework. Is there a framework more easy to pickup than others? Or is that like asking what's the best programming language?
I know php/python pretty well. Thanks for your help. <comment><USER2> "I know php/python pretty well."

If you know Python, Django is rather well reviewed and you can leverage your current knowledge.

I've started with Ruby on Rails in spite of almost no Ruby expernience. I've found that the learning curve for the language was low (I've used PHP/Python/Java before) and the framework was rather straightforward.

<comment><USER3> As a very experienced PHP and fairly experienced Python developer, I can back up the notes about Django. It's by far the easiest Python framework, and the full stack it comes with is very nice if you have a database etc.

Be warned it has a slightly steep curve for deployment if you're not used to deploying Python/WSGI applications. Be sure to read the mod_wsgi and Django deployment documentation first!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't give up after a few days. It'll make a world of difference.

If you choose a framework in a language you're not familiar with, spend time learning the language first, then learn the framework. Yes, it'll take some time, but that's what it takes to really learn something.

</comment><comment><USER5> KohanaPHP hands down.

They took codeigniter and pared it down to the bare essentials then rebuilt it from scratch.

It's easy to use, has a wealth of libraries (though not too many to confuse the issue) to build stuff with and is extremely fast.

As an example of how well it is written I recently built an entire hotel/restaurant booking system (inc. room monitoring & payment gateway) in around 350 lines (not including any HTML).

</comment><comment><USER6> if you know php already, codeigniter, imo.

its the lightest-weight (edit: popular) framework and least restrictive. very bare-bones by default. plus, the docs are great.

if you feel like subsequently moving to another php framework from there, the principles are very similar and the transition would be easy.

<comment><USER3> Codeigniter, whilst good, only runs on PHP 4:

<http://codeigniter.com/user_guide/overview/at_a_glance.html>

which means they've missed all the performance and security improvements in PHP 5 (like applying filters to user input), not to mention that PHP 4 is end of life now.

<comment><USER7> Taken from that same page: "Note: CodeIgniter will run on PHP 5. It simply does not take advantage of any native features that are only available in that version."

So, it does run on PHP5, just doesn't use PHP5 only features for the sake of backwards compatibility. For PHP5 one can use KohanaPHP, as mentioned by another comment :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What I have found helpful, coming from someone that now uses RoR but failed to learn it the first time around, is that you need a project in place that you are going to build using the new framework. Then you need to tell all your friends and family that you're going to launch a new web app in X amount of days, and that they should be excited about that. After establishing a foundation of peer-pressure, you will be a lot more motivated to achieve your goal with the new framework.

With that in mind, it seems to me that Django, RoR, etc. are all pretty much the same difficulty to learn. It essentially boils down to some Active Record component, a MVC model, and some funny sugar here and there.

</comment><comment><USER9> Frameworks can be difficult to learn if they are designed differently from the one you've worked with before. I've been in your position where I was in a team using our own homegrown framework and was switching to a more widely accepted one. What we ended up using would not be considered an easy to use framework today, but the switch was seamless for us. This was because the framework we switched to worked almost the same way as our homegrown one (at a high level, not at the implementation level). The patterns were the same, the actors were the same, the interfaces between objects were very similar.

So my advice is, with ease of learning for YOU being your primary criterion, read about the different frameworks out there now and see which one works closest to what you've been using. Hopefully you've designed your framework on sound patterns and known best practices and finding a similar one wouldn't be too difficult.

If you picked ideas from other frameworks to implement in your own framework, maybe you can start with the framework you copied from the most.

</comment><comment><USER10> There is no silver bullet. Blood, sweat and tears is what you need. I played with Django one night and then tried to repeat what I did the next day, but unguided. I failed, and gave up. I started playing with Rails and the same happened, but this time I snagged more training material and hit the books again. This time, it stuck. Personally, I have to hit the subject from several angles before it makes sense. Perhaps you work the same way?

<comment><USER11> Blood and tears are usually not required... I don't know of any frameworks that physically assault you, and generally I'm quite happy when I'm learning new things.

As for the sweat, you might want to invest in some deodorant, or perhaps turn up the air conditioning.

<comment><USER10> :) Metaphorically speaking, of course. That first breakthrough is the best feeling in the world, for sure. I enjoy learning new things, but frustration is part of that process. If anything, frustration is a driving force for me. If everything was easy it wouldn't be worth doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Your problem was that you gave after a couple of days.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. I use CakePHP (used the dart-against-a-wall method of picking it from the major frameworks). Now very familiar with it, enough so to understand its limitations, and especially its strengths. Probably going to switch to Zend soon, as I'm not the biggest CakePHP fan. But if you're only using it for a few days, you're not doing yourself any favors. Try writing a complete app in it (maybe an app you wrote a couple years ago, that you've always wanted to rewrite...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm surprised that nobody suggested Web.py (<http://webpy.org/>) by Aaron Swartz. Since you're comfortable with Python, that's the best starting point, I guess. If you're ready to give Ruby on more shot, try Sinatra or Ramaze. Both excellent light-weight frameworks.

</comment><comment><USER15> Use my php framework, of course ;)

<http://phocoa.com>

It is modeled after Cocoa development (Mac/iPhone apps).

If you already know Cocoa, that makes it very easy to learn since the architecture and concepts are all the same.

OTOH, if you don't know Cocoa, then there's a learning curve. In that respect, I suggest you follow others' advice and don't give up after a few days. Better yet, find a mentor for that framework, it will speed up the learning curve by a huge factor.

</comment><comment><USER16> The one you manage to learn first because you really-really like it. Then, all others that come along are somehow worse. You will then feel compelled to engage in religious debates over this.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was quite a keen CakePHP user until it dawned on me how slow and clunky it seemed to be.

Have since switched to Ramaze (<http://www.ramaze.net>) - a light, modular Ruby framework. Bearing in mind I knew zero Ruby at the time, I have never looked back. Definitely worth a look. (irc.ramaze.net/ramaze offers good support, too).

<comment><USER18> That's irc.freenode.net #ramaze. Not sure irc.ramaze.net points there.

And +1 for Ramaze. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> If the main criteria is only "easy", go with Drupal. Ok it's not a framework in the sense that Rails and CakePHP are frameworks, but the modular architecture allows you to snap together some pretty amazing functionality. Bonus for you in that it's written in PHP.

</comment><comment><USER20> I know php pretty well, I wrote an entire happy hour site with it. Which framework is better/easier to learn cakephp, KohanaPHP or RoR. I hear so many good things about RoR, but I've never used Ruby.

<comment><USER21> Ruby is pretty easy to learn. RoR is great, but the easiest Ruby framework to learn is Sinatra.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I would have to say NOLOH (<http://www.noloh.com>), but then again, I'm somewhat biased. Check it out for yourself, and see what you think.

</comment><comment><USER23> I have no idea but most of the guys i talked with recommanded "Code Igniter" and said it's very good, you may give it a look

</comment><comment><USER24> You should also check out <http://qcu.be/> It has a very cool auto-gen function

</comment><comment><USER25> CodeIgniter, but I'm biased. :D

</comment><comment><USER26> Catalyst

</comment><comment><USER27> web2py</comment>


Why is Kim Jong-un always surrounded by people taking notes? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-27116092 <comment><USER2> Kim's an easy target for humor, and certainly The Respected and Beloved Marshall's propaganda machine seems corny to us. But it's important to remember that DPRK is a brutal regime that is home to countless human rights tragedies over several decades. It is a very sad story. Read "Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea" by Barbara Demick if you want to feel really lucky about where you happened to be born.

<comment><USER3> Reading about the peasants' life during the Cultural Revolution plays out a very similar narrative, down to Mao's very corny propaganda.

<comment><USER4> And it still goes on. China just celebrated Mao and Russians in Crimea were holding up signs praising Stalin a few weeks ago, madness.

<comment><USER5> Wait, did I miss a Mao day recently? The trade union handed out huge Deng Xiao ping books a couple of months ago...not exactly celebrating Mao.

<comment><USER4> It was his 120th birthday celebration a few months ago, with officials praising him. Whether they actually believe what they say is another question, but you can hardly blame them for not going against the party.

<comment><USER5> Whenever someone emphasizes Deng at the same time people are discussing Mao, you can tell that their are elements in the party that are trying to emphasize that China's way forward is more inspired by Deng than Mao. But this is because there are two factions in the party: the moderates (Deng-like) and the leftists (Mao-like); the moderates have dominated for a long time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I did the tour in Pyongyang they often mentioned that Kim Jong Il wasn't just the leader but also was a domain expert at everything. And it was constantly reinforced that his "on-the-spot guidance" was the reason the country was doing so well at the time.

So I am sure his expertise is why they are taking notes. Either that or fear of having your entire family tree killed or put into detention.

<comment><USER7> It almost feels like North Korea is a big-deal TV/movie adaptation of a book series, and the Kims are the authors of the books. If you've ever seen how e.g. Stan Lee is treated on the set of a Marvel movie, it's quite similar. Everyone wants to make sure that, however good an idea they might think they have, it doesn't go against the author's vision for the "spirit of the story", especially where it concerns books-not-yet-written.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Interesting read but I suppose it's fairly obvious when you think about it.

That said I've seen corporate cultures where everyone is peer pressured into taking notes and often more so when highly ranked executives are in the meetings..

</comment><comment><USER9> I imagine there are some serious high availability requirements there - if the wise words of the great leader are not copied down then presumably Bad Things happen so it's RAINT (Redundant Array of Inexpensive Note Takers).

<comment><USER7> You'd think that could be replaced with a Redundant Array of Inexpensive Tape Recorders, plus one good stenographer to listen to them later.

<comment><USER10> As noted at the end of the article- accuracy isn't a priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The regime is certainly a sibling of Mao's and a cousin of all the "communist" regimes established during that period. There are a lot of stylistic similarities in their art, propaganda, speeches and such.

A surprising number of traits seem to be features picked all totalitarian regimes, including ancient ones. Deification and mythologizing of rulers and accompanying art is something found in many accounts of kings from some of the oldest pieces of port writing we have.

What _is_ striking and unique about this regime is how long it has managed to maintain this totalitarianism. There are young adults who are now 3rd generation natives to this craziness. It's also amazingly isolated. Isolation is not rare in history, but in the context of the modern era it makes it very very strange.

<comment><USER12> I think that's because the playbook for a successful totalitarian regime is a function of human nature, and regime stability is probably maximized by a fairly specific set of parameters. Eg. optimize by turning the propaganda visual style knob to realist-severe-deco, the secret police knob to incredibly brutal, the national culture knob to leader-deification, etc. And this will work until the nature of the human animal's tribal/lizard brain changes (hint: ~never).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its a submission test. Its just like people taking random notes they will never look at when someone 2-3 levels on the hierarchy talks to them in a corporation.

<comment><USER14> I take notes I will never read because it staves off the boredom and helps me concentrate and process the information. It's slightly more socially acceptable than rephrasing aloud.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm relieved we've gone back to light-heartedly reporting DPRK's eccentricities rather than worrying about the potential consequences of this powerful and deluded leader's take on international relations.

<comment><USER16> Agreed. It's a shame, though, that so many of us are expressing admiration for Putin.

<comment><USER17> Thus far, he's led his nation effectively, and for the most part done a good job of looking out for the interests of his people. One may respect the skill he has thus demonstrated, without approving of every policy he's enacted in so doing.

The alternative, I suppose, would be to declare Putin the Enemy, complete with majuscule -- whether of one's nation, or of some nebulous progressive concept of social justice, or whatever you like -- and thenceforth reflexively despise the man and his policies at the very least, if not also the nation he so effectively governs, until such time as he should conform his behavior more closely to whatever constraints one might define.

I suppose that's all right for some, but I prefer to keep an open mind. Isn't that something people regard as a virtue around here?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well, it's quite clear why. If the supreme leader says "this should be this instead" and nobody remembers, things are going to be bad for those that were supposed to make the changes.

</comment><comment><USER19> I like that in the final photo, the note-taker has even got a shadow of another note-taker projected onto him.

<comment><USER20> When I first saw that picture, I thought that the guy had peed his pants in fear that he had offended the "Dear Great Leader"

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have an alternative theory: those people are taking notes in order to impress upon Kim Jong-un the weight of responsibility that his position carries. This is isomorphic to the way the shouted "Sir, Yes Sir!" of a marine reminds the officer that he holds his subordinate's life in his hands.

My theory is bullshit though: they're obviously doing it out of deference. Sometimes I do wonder whether Kim feels the pressure. Maybe that constant scrutiny and expectation of perfection makes him even crazier?

</comment><comment><USER22> My guess is that what they write in their notebooks is not as important as the physical demonstration of social and intellectual inferiority they present to their boss. Kim Jong Un has already demonstrated a willingness to execute people who could even be perceived as potential rivals. If you reinforce the illusion projected by the leadership, you don't die. Or at least you have fewer generations of your family punished with you in political prison.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is it possible that taking notes in North Korea are the equivalent of taking pictures of everything in the modern world?

</comment><comment><USER24> tldr - it's so that images of him show him in a position of assumed intellectual power at all times.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is that a MiG-21 in the last photo?

<comment><USER26> Could be a J-7

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The important question is - why is he surrounded by people. This guy should be in isolation :)

</comment><comment><USER28> >it's ridiculous, he can't possibly know about all of these different things

That just seemed petty.

Does Lebron James balk if President Obama gives him a tip on his jumper?

<comment><USER20> "Does Lebron James balk if President Obama gives him a tip on his jumper?" \- No he just rolls his eyes... But Dennis Rodman better not try that in North Korea if he wants to come home in one piece.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> He has to know who to hit with a flamethrower later or maybe if he is feeling humanitarian, a .50 cal.

</comment><comment><USER30> It is just to give the "leader" a sense of importance ....

</comment><comment><USER31> Because if they do one thing wrong, it's bye bye...

</comment><comment><USER32> I see the potential of an internet mime here.</comment>


An Introduction to Deep Learning for Tabular Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.fast.ai/2018/04/29/categorical-embeddings/ <comment><USER2> With regards to what we should call this type of data, I think that 'tabular' or 'relational' are good, however, 'structured' is problematic because an mp3 or a JPEG are both very structured, we just don't store them in tables.

Otherwise, a very cool post!</comment>


Hypertext Literal - <AUTHOR> https://observablehq.com/@observablehq/htl <comment><USER2> We created Hypertext Literal because we wanted a convenient (and safe!) way to create DOM from JavaScript, and nothing more. As the post explains, we were inspired by lit-html, but felt we could simplify (and optimize) by focusing on creation rather than dynamic updates.

<comment><USER3> Hi Mike, this looks neat! In the linked document you mention that in addition to lit-html it's also inspired by HTM. Briefly looking at the readme for that project, it does look quite similar. Could you clarify what features/design decisions in HTL distinguish it from HTM?

<comment><USER2> Thanks! This is covered at the end of the post, but I can elaborate a bit here.

HTM mirrors JSX syntax, which means it requires closing tags for every element. We wanted HTML5 syntax instead, which means our parser needs to handle void elements and missing close tags, and a variety of other edge cases (such as "bogus" comments) whose behavior is defined by the HTML5 specification.

Another important feature for us is contextual namespaces. If you have a G element within HTML, it's an unknown element, but within SVG it's a group element. HTM (and JSX, HyperScript, and similar approaches) build the DOM from leaves up, so at the time you create the element, you don't know what the parent is and thus can't infer the appropriate namespace. That's fixable by changing what HTM passes to the "pragma", but it would require changing the signature.

<comment><USER4> That's a pretty good selling point. I always was quite disappointed that after years and years of finding more writable alternatives to the verbosity of HTML, we picked up the worst version of it (from a writing-as-a-human perspective). That always bothered me way more than mixing markup and code.

HTML5 by comparison ain't that bad and it's the language you'd also be using when writing things manually. So I appreciate the effort. Pairing that with preact might be a good toy project.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Film-less Photography (first digital camera - 1975) - <AUTHOR> http://pluggedin.kodak.com/post/?ID=687843

<comment><USER2> I remember a talk I attended by Rodney Brooks roughly 4 years ago, in which he used this example to show how exponential change catches up. He quoted a Kodak executive who remarked that it was the future and they all knew it, but they just let it slide after that. Why? As Mr. Graham's recent essay about Yahoo! pointed out Kodak had a cash cow in the form of film and they didn't want to see something as radically disruptive as a digital camera. Everyone knew about it, but they didn't want to see it. I think that its quite an understandable form of self deception.

So, what they did was they put it under a pillow and hoped that it would go away. A smaller competitor on the other hand had nothing to lose discovered the technology and along with others exponentially improved it (the megapixels war) until the film was outdated at last. If you think about it if Kodak had been willing to go out of their comfort zone they would have owned the camera market today.

The most interesting thing is that if everything had been a constant then it wouldn't have mattered. Self deception works really well in fields like politics etc. but over here we had a phenomena that accelerated the change and suddenly we had a positive feedback cycle to sustain it. This is why technology is so interesting in my opinion. Opinions don't matter. If something has technological merit then regardless of the fact of what you think about it. It's going to improve and take over your constant.

What's troubling though is just how counter-intuitive it is and just how many of us fall into the trap of thinking; 'nah it ain't gonna happen'.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxDfcyT92wQ&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxDfcyT92wQ&feature=related)

</comment><comment><USER4> This has been on HN <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1611860></comment>


Let's Wage a War on Loneliness - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/09/opinion/sunday/britain-loneliness-epidemic.html <comment><USER2> Capitalize it instead. There is a need so it makes sense to make some money with it. What is the business viability of the following:

25 minute theater for lunch. room at 11:45 use their smartphones to vote for the show. All attendees must make a purchase.

Dance halls. I probably have 3 feet, but I can learn.

Certainly there must be a way to make money selling company.</comment>


U.S. Tech Giants Are Helping to Build China's Surveillance State - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2019/07/11/china-surveillance-google-ibm-semptian/ <comment><USER2> What exactly has Google, IBM, and Xilinx given Semptian? The only thing I can find is that they are all collaborating on POWER through the OpenPOWER foundation? Specifically,

> Together, they have worked to advance a breed of microprocessors that enable > computers to analyze vast amounts of data more efficiently.

This means little to nothing: pretty much every company in the field is doing this. Here's a list of current members: [https://openpowerfoundation.org/membership/current- members/](https://openpowerfoundation.org/membership/current-members/). This is a pretty large list.

</comment><comment><USER3> Related previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20433311](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20433311)

<comment><USER2> Honestly, this just makes the story's credibility even worse: the author is just picking a foundation with a lot of members and linking all of them to authoritarian regimes by virtue of having one or two members who may be helping government surveillance.

<comment><USER4> This raised the question in my mind: is the author being dishonest, or does he just have a different perspective and different values than me? Or alternately, have I not thought through my own values sufficiently to see that I should expect the same outcome as he does?

If I assume the author is being honest, the rationale must be something like this. The Chinese government is a serial human-rights violator. Most recently, it has been known to put people into reeducation camps on the basis of having a minority religious affiliation, but that's just one of many examples. Companies ought not sell to or provide services for human rights violators. This restriction should apply transitively as much as is reasonably possible.

Now, given that there is a company in this foundation that is working with the Chinese government, it is reasonable to anticipate that the efforts of the foundation would benefit the Chinese government. Therefore, all of the other companies that are participating in the foundation are tainted by transitivity. They should either oust the one company working with China, or else themselves leave the foundation.

I'm not sure where my agreement with this author breaks down, but it is somewhere before his conclusion. For me, the big question is how open standards and software jive with this transitive interpretation of moral responsibility. Anyone working on OpenCV or TensorFlow is working on something that could reasonably be anticipated to assist the Chinese government in the repression of its citizens. Same goes for anyone who publishes in the ML space. But I think the idea that one should not do these things is absurd, so I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and that line is far short of Google's or IBM's participation in this foundation.

That said, I think I could be convinced that companies working mainly with the Chinese government should not be allowed to sit on the foundation. But I'm not sure even of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe a basic question, but wouldn't most of this be defunct in the age of https?

</comment><comment><USER6> This just seems like investment in open infrastructure? Any tool can be used for evil. Are contributions to the Linux kernel, then, a kind of contribution to the surveillance state?

What a ridiculous criticism. The media hysteria is boiling over in completely nonsensical ways.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a stretch, IMO.

Tl;dr: Google and IBM collaborate on the Power architecture, which is widely used in scientific computing. One of the other companies collaborating on it is a Chinese company that sells chips to the Chinese state among other clients.

By this sort of Kevin Bacon logic you can basically tie anyone to anything.

<comment><USER8> > The OpenPower Foundation — a nonprofit led by Google and IBM executives with > the aim of trying to "drive innovation" — has set up a collaboration between > IBM, Chinese company Semptian, and U.S. chip manufacturer Xilinx. Together, > they have worked to advance a breed of microprocessors that enable computers > to analyze vast amounts of data more efficiently.

I think in order to satisfy the Intercept's perspective, the US would have to technologically starve China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The 21st century version of _IBM and the Holocaust_ ([https://ibmandtheholocaust.com/](https://ibmandtheholocaust.com/)) is being written right before our eyes.

<comment><USER10> _reposting a dead reply to this comment_

ataturk 7 minutes ago

>That's how I see it. In 2005 I worked at a tech startup that was building out surveillance camera networks for Australia to spy on its rail system. I was aghast and the enormity of the project and how much money was involved and that was 2005. That project ultimately failed, but later ones of course have proceeded.

>Ethically, I don't get how we are doing this to ourselves. The bar has to be raised as far what is acceptable here. Otherwise, why did we fight two world wars? Why did we fight a Cold War against this kind of collectivism? We already know it's rancid. The level of freedom of the average Chinese citizen is horrifying. Do we want that for our children? Or are we going to fight for a better world? Tech has to lead the way and not just go there for profit. We have to be better than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm of the opinion that US Companies (or companies operating in the us) selling software/hardware that is designed for the purpose of violating human rights or the terms of the US constitution should be taxed at 100% of their international profits.

If you don't believe the human rights or the US constitution are of any value you shouldn't get to use those protections to profit. Move your company to China or wherever, and operate in the constraint you enforce on others.

<comment><USER12> What if those same companies are helping to power the NSA illegally collecting and storing data on Americans without a warrant? Is that different to you? Where in this Constitution you elude to does it permit that? I can show you precisely where it doesn't...

<comment><USER11> No. But it's also illegal for them to do that, and it's disgusting that the elected officials of the government continue to allow it to do so.

Of course it's also only able to do it because for-profit companies are being paid for their assistance. I would argue that makes them criminals (knowingly aiding a criminal attack), and as such they should be charged with those crimes. The US government basically pleads sovereign immunity to violations of its own criminal attacks on US citizens, so charging the companies that assists them with those crimes, and also removing their profit motive, would hopefully kill off the NSA, ICE, and the DHS's continuous violations of the constitution.</comment></comment></comment>


Songs of Diridum: Pushing the Web Audio API to Its Limits - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/10/songs-of-diridum-pushing-the-web-audio-api-to-its-limits/

<comment><USER2> Direct link to the game is [http://labs.gooengine.com/mozlod/](http://labs.gooengine.com/mozlod/).

The song the band is playing is actually sort of nice background programming music.

<comment><USER3> Jazz is my favorite programming music. In particular, Christmas Jazz (vince guaraldi trio, and some brad mehldau -style songs: pandora station: [http://www.pandora.com/station/159969656237355797](http://www.pandora.com/station/159969656237355797))

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like this! A great demo of new standards working in browsers.

As far as 3D audio goes it would be amazing to see an example which delayed audio to one ear based on the different distances from each ear to the source of the sound.

This example just pans the audio - which is still a great effect, but I remember how much I was wowed by the binaural virtual barbershop[1]

[1]: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUDTlvagjJA)

</comment><comment><USER5> Works great in my chrome.

Is there any tech synthesizing the effects of distance? A linear volume fade (usually too quickly) doesn't cut it.

See: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Distance_of_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_localization#Distance_of_the_sound_source)

</comment><comment><USER3> too slow for me (though I am on chrome so that's probably why)</comment>


Function-based API without vue3 - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/liximomo/vue-function-api <comment><AUTHOR> Vue's creator Eavan You have published an RFC for function-based component API for Vue3. You can use it right now in Vue2.</comment>


Given two points on the globe, how do you figure out the direction and distance? - <AUTHOR> http://www.askamathematician.com/2018/07/q-given-two-points-on-the-globe-how-do-you-figure-out-the-direction-and-distance-to-each-other/ <comment><USER2> Here is a site that explains the math and will do the calc.

[https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html](https://www.movable- type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html)</comment>


Let's stop bashing C# - <AUTHOR> https://www.codeaddiction.net/articles/51/lets-stop-bashing-c-sharp <comment><USER2> I never heard anyone bashing about C# and I'm writing C# code for 10 years now. There are just plenty of people favouring other languages which is fine. If you're looking for people bashing about it you'll sure find some.. same goes with basically everything.

<comment><USER3> There's a small ammount of trolls that spam "M$" kind of arguments but they are largely ignored from what I've seen.

On the flip side there's a lot of people who over-represent C# especially in comparison with Java. I mean the language is very nice, better than Java no doubt - but the platform and ecosystem is much less mature than JVM. Where is the .NET equivalent of ZooKeeper, Hadoop etc. .NET can use those like any other language but the fact of the matter is that Java was and is still the choice on those kinds of projects and the ecosystem is much bigger. Even when .NET gets something from those like Akka.NET, JGit it's usually a worse copy. And JVM ecosystem is much more distributed, there's plenty of stuff going around all over - Scala feels a lot more popular in the real world than F#, Clojure feels like a similarly niche thing but is entirely community driven, and the early results from Graal/Truffle were quite impressive, much better than Microsoft did with the DLR before they left it off to community.

<comment><USER4> Yes this 100%. Community ecosystem is a joke on C# compared to Java. Take for example lucene. I just used version 3.03 in a C# project because the port hasn't been updated in years. Version 6.x is the current one.

We also needed to use Redis in C# and the client is unstable. Nothing we can do about it besides catch the exceptions and randomly reconnect when it happens. Are we losing some data? Probably.

Even if the open source community embraces C# it will take 10 years before the offerings are comparable to Java. And for what? C# is nearly identical to Java in design and performance, it just has slightly prettier syntax

<comment><USER5> I had the same with Lucene a few years ago. It's really frustrating to realize that there is a ton of open source stuff out there but you can't use it because you are on C#. Or you get something outdated or buggy.

I really wish MS did something to make Java/C# work together.

<comment><USER4> It gets worse the more familiar you are with open source, because you know how bad you're missing out.

All the guys that live in MS world swear they're not missing out on anything. But these are the same guys that lived in the enterprise version of North Korea until a few years ago.

<comment><USER5> "enterprise version of North Korea "

I like that phrase. Unfortunately it describes my life :-(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There is no reason to bash C#, but there is still reasons to be on the fence about it.

The runtimes and libraries for non windows platforms are still behind, and are quite new. Additionally while there has been efforts to grow the community and get outside involvement, it is still obvious that Microsoft is the big player, and without their involvement the community might shrink to a fraction of its size.

Microsoft itself complicates matters as for some people it takes a lot to be convinced that "new Microsoft" isn't just old Microsoft in sheeps clothing, and its all a ploy to get people onto their platform so they can lock you in. I have started to be convinced that microsoft has actually turned a leaf and is actually working to build a community and genuinely will support other platforms, but I am always going to be a little cautious... call it post traumatic stress from the early 2000s.

Finally I don't see a reasons to rush to build in C#. It seems a perfectly decent language, but without being experienced in the language is there a problem domain (outside rich client windows apps) where the language is significantly better then other choices?

I don't think C# should be bashed, but I also think it still needs to prove itself to the non windows platform and open source developers.

<comment><USER7> Integrated Development Environment, Built in package manager, massive _maintained_ ecosystem of libraries, fastest compiler in production (after lisp languages), compiler as a service, full runtime reflection and emit capabilities, _three_ GUI libraries + Designers built into the IDE, A full blown MVC web backend toolset. There is more, but is this not enough? The language isn't perfect, but the idea that it has to prove itself to anyone is quite an arrogant stance to be honest.

<comment><USER6> If I am going to have to support an application written in it to clients, then damn straight the language needs to prove that it will be worth the investment.

Many of the features you mentioned are not available for the .net core version. The .net core version is not a standard install on client servers (it is not shipping with RHEL/CENTOS) and is still very recent. Having supported dozens of Java apps through the early versions, the last thing I want to do is spend my time discovering esoteric runtime / os library version conflicts.

So yes, the language needs to prove itself that as a platform for delivering Linux / Mac server apps that it is as boring and reliable as the rest of the stack.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the author wants credibility about bashing C# perhaps they should not generalize other languages within their argument. Can C# not stand on its own merits? As someone who has been using Python for nesrly two decades --How is the author defining 'hipster' languages?

<comment><USER9> What's more, Python is usually quite appreciated in the .Net community. It's a first class citizen on Azure, it used to have a .Net port (IronPython) and one of the current trending github project for C# is one allowing Python interoperability ([https://github.com/trending/c%23](https://github.com/trending/c%23))

It's like a grandpa getting angry alone in front of his mirror.

<comment><USER10> I would say it is in both directions ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> And while we're at it, let's stop beating our spouses!

Seriously, that's one of the bigger straw man posts I've read in a while. Sure, I'm confident that somewhere on the big, wide Internet claims such as those listed by the author can be found. And some folks seem entirely convinced that the Earth is flat.

You want "bashing"? C#'s got nothing on, say, php. C#, AFAICT from circles I pay attention to, is loved far more than it's hated. But, as someone else in this comment section pointed out, it's a hell of a way to generate clicks.

</comment><comment><USER12> Rob Ashton made the point years ago that the principal problem with C# was cultural, not technical. [http://codeofrob.com/entries/why-you-cant-be-a- good-.net-dev...](http://codeofrob.com/entries/why-you-cant-be-a-good-.net- developer.html)

Of course, he did it in his classically abrasive style, so not that many people championed the article.

</comment><comment><USER13> Even if C# would be the most technical superior language ever made with every feature you could think of, a lot of developers still don't like it because:

\- C# smells corporate, being used in many large scale business application.

\- C# is developed by Microsoft, a billion dollar company itself

\- The .NET platform is only partial open source

So facts don't matter much, it's about smell :)

<comment><USER14> Is that true anymore? I was under the impression that .NET is fully open source: [https://dotnetfoundation.org/](https://dotnetfoundation.org/)

Besides that though, C# is much nicer than Java and fills a similar niche.

<comment><USER15> That covers the new .NET core parts, not the classic .NET. The classic .NET framework contains lots of components (e.g. WinForms, but also others) which are mainly wrappers around Windows/COM components. Therefore they can't be fully open source. Nevertheless the .NET core and open sourcing effort is great from my POV.

<comment><USER16> ..and you don't want to go anywhere near that stuff unless you must write win ui software.

It's my preferred language, especially now it is getting functional constructs. It's basically a more advanced, concise and flexible version of Java. Only with value types (fast algorithms).

As others have said the ecosystem is different, it's better for games (Unity) but horrible for NLP (Lucene.net is a museaum piece and NHibernate isn't great).

I write just as much TypeScript/JavaScript nowadays and keep my Java/Python up to date. I really want to add a functional language to replace Python (the 2/3 divide is tiring) but don't have the time (thanks to having two young kids and a wife who also works full time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This sounds like one of those karma-fishing Reddit posts that start off with, " _I know I 'm going to get downvoted for this, but..._", but then go on to state a popular opinion and receive thousands of upvotes for it.

No matter which programming language is mentioned here, there will ALWAYS be a few people commenting, " _I like 'X' better!_" (where 'X' is usually an emerging language that they tinker with in hobby projects and haven't used professionally yet).

That caveat aside, C# has generally been one of HN's darlings in recent years. People who crap on Java turn around and praise C# in the next breath, because:

(1) There are some syntactical niceties that make C# feel "lighter",

(2) MS has developed a more "open" and even "cool" reputation over the past few years, at least in comparison to Oracle, and

(3) In many cases, it's again people who have started tinkering with it in personal projects, and haven't yet hit the inevitable pain points of using any language for real professional work in a team setting.

C# certainly isn't Haskell, but it checks off enough functional checkboxes to have some cred, while still being approachable and familiar enough for non- academic mortals out in industry. Xamarin and Unity aren't perfect, but they give C# a solid foothold in mobile and gaming (which, along with web dev, are the holy trinity of domains that drive hype among young devs.

I really haven't heard much negative chatter. There will always be the people holding on to MS's propriety brand image from the 90's, who always want to comment on it from their Apple devices today. But on the Internet hype spectrum of "cool" (Rust, Go, Elixir) to "uncool" (Java, PHP)... I'd say C# is at least 10% off the middle, in the direction of "cool". It checks the checkboxs of:

* "mildly interesting",

* "low learning curve",

* "ease of actually finding an employer who uses it", and

* "not likely to fade away because people don't migrate to version 3, or because Mozilla can't find another sponsor after Yahoo, or because yet another Ruby-successor comes along next week and sucks up all the hype, or whatever".

Really, the only people who criticize it a lot are the people in Microsoft shops who _actually use it for a living today (!)_ , but isn't that pattern usually true for everything?

</comment><comment><USER18> Until all programming languages coalesce into one super language (ECMAScript 20 in the year 2050), programmers will bash languages and programmers will praise languages.

Until that fateful day we must all accept criticism of our favourite language even though we are so smart and know it's the best language.

<comment><USER7> Even then they will war on, because the task of converting all libraries to another language is such an immense undertaking. Really we need an AI to do the transpiling job, then assign performance and maintainability scores, so we can objectively argue the clear winners.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've written C# for the last 10 or so years now. I was a lot heavier in C# the first 5 years until my career changed paths. So I've gotten to watch C# "from a distance" for the last 5 years now and I'm optimistic about C#'s future. C# has an image problem. Of the programmers I've talked to, the polyglots usually see the strengths in C#.

</comment><comment><USER20> C# with the available libraries through the nuget package manager has been the best experience I have had in my career.

</comment><comment><USER21> Why would c# be bashed? On the contrary, i'm detecting a lot of approval of Microsoft and dot net the latest "months"/"years".

Microsoft is doing fine and their products also. Not mentioning the rize of Visual Code that is trending EVERY release :)

</comment><comment><USER22> I agree. If you are going to bash C#, call it by its proper name, Java++

That said its still a fine language. Not a fan of the dogmatic OO design concept in Java and C#, but it's perfectly good at what it does.

</comment><comment><USER23> Just the opposite. I've wished for more than a decade that Java would be more like C#. Even more since Oracle took over the stewardship of Java.

With .NET Core and Microsoft's new CEO's vision, I am excited for the future of C# (and F#) and very happy to put Java behind me. The CLR is a lot nicer than the JVM too.

Now if only the ClojureCLR could get the support that ClojureJVM had, I'd be done with the JVM entirely.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have loved .net as a framework and c# as a language, but the bashing is just as well part of the community itself.

What about the c# developers hating vb.net or java? What about .net experts bashing jvm, php, node ? What about windows users bashing *nix for GUI? ahh the list is long, from both sides.

Frameworks and Languages are fine, but what have you actually done with your stack?

</comment><comment><USER25> .NET Core isn't packaged for Debian, Fedora and CentOS, and for Ubuntu you have to add a separate PPA.

That makes it an instant no-go for me. I'm not a software packager and I'm not becoming one to try new and unstable C# tooling.

Visual Studio Community was a pretty terrible experience and I don't intend to spend more of my time on unreliable Microsoft products.

<comment><USER26> While there aren't necessarily native packages pre-built and ready to pull down with the installers, you don't need to be a 'software packager' to install .NET Core and I don't know what the problem is with 'add[ing] a separate PPA'

Instructions for Debian[1], Fedora[2], Centos[3] and Ubuntu[4]. These all seem like pretty simple copy+paste instructions.

[1] [https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxdebian](https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxdebian) [2] [https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxfedora](https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxfedora) [3] [https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxcentos](https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxcentos) [4] [https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxubuntu](https://www.microsoft.com/net/core#linuxubuntu)

<comment><USER25> I don't want 3rd party repositories to manage. To do it properly I have to (in the case of Debian) trust some MS team's signing keys (yuck), add the repo and update my apt-pinning rules (I don't want apt accidentally installing MS versions of tools) and integrate this in my dev OS build automation.

That vs. adding a single line in my list of selected packages. The price to adoption is high and it's just not worth it to me, especially seeing how immature the tooling and overall ecosystem is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "Hey, the process for adding features for the language isn't any more opaque than Java!"

Talk about damning with faint praise...

</comment><comment><USER28> I used C# to write an Excel toolbar. The big problem I had with it is that there were features they had only implemented in Visual Basic/C++. It appeared that C# was incomplete in it's implementation of MS API's

<comment><USER29> I've done the same. The problem isn't C#'s access to the APIs, the problem is the APIs are incomplete, especially as MS moved to the SDI interface since Office 2010. There are somethings you just can't do in an Add-In that are obviously possible due to built-in features. Things like have a text-box in a toolbar show the proper text in inactive windows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Stop defending the language of your choice as well. Each popular language has its own set of suitable use cases. Ignore the attacks on the language you are using, instead, try the other languages to see what they are good at.

</comment><comment><USER31> C3 is awsome... dosen't matter if not anyone can see. But what really helps c# being awsome is VS. One of the most complete IDE in market. I use VS since 6.0 and still founding new features that is surprises me.

</comment><comment><USER32> I am a crusty old developer who has written many a C# program over the years. I am certainly not hip, cool or trendy, but my friends and I have become financially independent thanks to C#. Thanks Micro$oft. Love you!

</comment><comment><USER33> I've spent the last 4 months writing a C# web service on .NET Core and deploy on Linux. We chose it because it was the right tool for the job. We're consuming a verbose WCF web service and there were some unique benefits to doing it in a .NET language.

I've been primarily using python for the last couple of years so it's been a really interesting experience. Here are some of my thoughts:

\- The language itself is really mature and actually really easy to be productive in. We're using ASP.NET MVC and getting to know the right way to do things took a while though.

\- It's hard to use C# without Visual Studio on Windows. I've tried Rider from JetBrains which is decent but takes SO much memory and is pretty slow to develop in. I've been using VSCode recently which is a great general editor but lacks a number of great VS features. Visual Studio for Mac doesn't work with how our app is structured for some reason (VS on Windows in a VM works fine though). I've had to fire up bootcamp a few times to use VS on Windows.

\- I thought static typing was going to make it harder to do things, but I think in terms of preventing some common bugs its great. It's no silver bullet though.

\- I'm developing on a mac and deploying on Linux. There's no great way to filter for .NET Core packages on NuGet (the M$ package manager). We've run into some issues trying to use versions of packages that aren't yet .NET Core compatible

\- There are a number of commonly used Linux environment tools we cant use, like New Relic for APM, because they don't have support for the platform version yet

\- The ORM (Entity Framework) we're using is nowhere near as good as something like SQLAlchemy when it comes to migrations. It's laughably bad.

\- The testing framework is pretty good, but without real Visual Studio we're missing some great features like code coverage analysis

\- Paying for a license to use a library we needed feels REALLY weird

\- Overall our web service is really fast. Asynchronous programming in C# is very easy and very powerful and we've been able to make a lot of performance gains by using it judiciously.

\- Its honestly hard to find answers googling around sometimes because there are so many version of .NET and 10+ year of answers to the same questions. The same can be said for a number of languages.

\- Our build and deployment already handles a few other statically typed languages to making it work with .NET wasn't a big deal for us, but I can see how that could be hard

I'd be happy to answer any questions that people might have.

<comment><USER10> .NET is highly backwards compatible, so why does "10+ year of answers to the same questions" matter to you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I just prefer to use languages that I'm more proficient with. And, the cost of MSVS etc. is expensive, as the article mentions.

</comment><comment><USER35> To be honest I kinda hate Anders Hejlsberg. If it wasn't him I wouldn't have gotten myself into Turbo Pascal and later Delphi and later into C#. I would've probably looked into C and Lisps. I spent years thinking Windows is the best OS and VS is the best IDE. I wish there was someone 20 years ago to stop me from falling into that trap. Well, I broke out of my bubble and now I feel free. No matter how nice it may look - dotnet is a mental prison.

</comment><comment><USER36> c# > java

JVM > CLR

my opinion. I'll pick java everyday over c# due to the jvm. unless I'm building windows only app or an app for the app phone.

</comment><comment><USER37> The link is broken. yeah, let's stop bashing.

<comment><USER38> Works fine for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> C# is no worse than Java.

<comment><USER39> Maybe even a bit better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I use C# daily at work and my dislike can be summed up by one word: Microsoft.

They may have changed course but open source software has for 10+ years largely avoided the platform. This means C# is Java with nicer syntax but 10% the libraries and terrible cross platform support.

There's been countless times at work when I needed a certain library and I already knew what the Java equivalent was, but what I was looking for simply didn't exist. Database clients, data processing, http2, image manipulation, etc...

With Java I get everything I do from C# plus all the stuff they've been raving about working on in .NET core . Plus I get choice. There's 3 full featured IDE's, 20 or so servers, 6 or 7 JVM's

<comment><USER40> This really sounds like a lack of knowledge of the .NET ecosystem. Every area you mentioned has extensive library coverage.

In addition there are several C# IDEs available, including from JetBrains who creates IntelliJ! Roslyn makes fancy features such as auto complete available to text editors as well such as VS Code or Atom.

<comment><USER41> Not to mention that the best C# IDE is better than any of the Java ones.

<comment><USER42> I have to disagree. Unlike the VS Resharper plugin, the JetBrains IDEs are really good. Unlike VS, they rarely lock the UI thread doing paternalistic busywork that adds very marginal value to my work.

I'm use VS all the time, so I'm not going to dump on it too much, but there is definitely room for improvement. I'm only vaguely familiar with VS 2017, but I understand they've put their IDE on a diet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Just use Bash instead of bashing C#.

<comment><USER43> Wow this lighthearted post gets downvotes. Not by Linux people I hope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Part dispelling of myths, part "well I actually like curly braces, so there." Please enjoy your curly braces, nobody is taking them away anytime soon.</comment>