[daulex]

This is the future of hackathons, free code days and weekend dev marathons.

Yet I'm not sure how soon any serious company will trust it with serious applications.

I'm not putting it down, this is incredible progress, the money (x millions in funding) behind it will give it a good amount of momentum, but it just seems a bit too easy, a bit too gimmicky to be taken seriously. I hope I'm wrong.

[akavi]

a bit too easy

That's an awful curious criticism to level against a platform.

[sac2171]

see "Dark Wizards" from the Pragmatic Programmer. (Not that I agree with him, but it's not an uncommon criticism.)

[dools]

Do you mean awfully curious?

[FreakLegion]

See 'flat adverbs':

http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgC&lpg=PA451&...

[scoot]

The fact that flat adverbs exist doesn't make this usage correct. The fact that it's incorrect however doesn't warrant comment. We all know what the writer intended.

[dools]

I found it genuinely ambiguous. I guess I'm not used to read "American English".

[FreakLegion]

The link in my previous post has more background. Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, John Dryden, Jane Austen and so on were hardly writing in "American English." In fact the non-ly adverb is a relic of Anglo-Saxon declension and is present in all modern Englishes, much like the few remaining English accusatives ("him," "her," "them", etc.).

Contrary to the comment above, "awful curious" isn't incorrect usage. It's only ambiguous if you start from the assumption of an error (missing punctuation, missing conjunction, or missing -ly).

English is rich with similar constructions that are widely mistaken for errors due to prescriptions in basic style guides, which is about as far as most folks' knowledge of the language extends. Another common one is the comma splice, which isn't an error as long as you know to call it asyndeton or parataxis.