9rx

213 ms·

2491.
by 9rx 2y ago
Certainly there is a need for care outside of computers too, like in law, but legal documents are a prime example of programs. That's programming, written using a programming language, not natural language. It is decidedly not the same
2492.
by 9rx 2y ago
What separates natural language from programming language is that natural language doesn't have to be careful. Once you have to be careful, you are programming.
2493.
by 9rx 2y ago
> If you're careful in your prompting In other words, if you replace natural language with a programming language then the computer will do a good job of interpreting your intent. But that's always been true, so...
2494.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Who is at fault when a computer makes a mistake? "Fault" seeks to determine who is able to undo the mistake so that we can see that they undo it. It is possible the computer is the best candidate for that under some circums
2495.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Right and I'm saying I don't like your example. And I don't like road bridges made of concrete and steel, preferring popsicle sticks. But engineering is not driven by feelings, so this is irrelevant. > When you use
2496.
by 9rx 2y ago
> So your example is meaningless pedantic pointlessness. Okay, but it is not my example. It was the example given in the very first comment. It what was asserted to have created the circular dependency. > The concept of type is a ca
2497.
by 9rx 2y ago
> I have a scramble function that takes an egg type as a parameter I don't know where you're pulling the scrambled bones from. Then you're in for an educational treat. Believe it or not, inside a "hatching egg"
2498.
by 9rx 2y ago
> No I'm not. Enjoy your scrambled bones, then, I guess. But even if you want to model the world as having only one egg type, that type decidedly does not cleanly fit into "animal" or "food", so your taxonomy d
2499.
by 9rx 2y ago
Essentially. More likely, without straying too far from the original, you would have something like `animal.Egg` and `food.Egg` (although it is likely that you would want to stray from the original in an actual setting). You are going to do
2500.
by 9rx 2y ago
At least we can agree it is (T, E) and not (T or E).
2501.
by 9rx 2y ago
That is an unusual looking chicken egg.
2502.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Some eggs I eat, some eggs I hatch. Exactly. Like you describe, this domain model has at least two different types of eggs. This matches what was described in the original comment. But, in the original comment, the author was trying
2503.
by 9rx 2y ago
> You realize that we use these actual separations between food and animals in the real world? The distinction between "animal" and "food" isn't necessarily faulty, but an egg considered to be for food and an e
2504.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Imagine I have a chicken and an egg. Chicken goes in the animal package and egg goes in the food package. It is now fundamentally impossible to make a chicken lay an egg and an egg hatch a chicken at the same time. I am familiar with
2505.
by 9rx 2y ago
> and "?" operator. To be fair, Go almost go the "?" operator like Rust. The proposal was well received. It wasn't the lack of "Result" that held it back, it was that nobody could figure out how to de
2506.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Go's error handling has four possible cases If you consider (T, error) to be logically coupled, there is actually effectively an infinite number of cases. (T, U, error), (T, U, V, error), (T, U, V, W, error), etc. Although I sus
2507.
by 9rx 2y ago
> That is not what is being discussed and you know it. That is exactly what is being discussed. Why would the topic arbitrarily change? In case you have forgotten, my literal question/assertion was: "How would you forget, ex
2508.
by 9rx 2y ago
> the code will typically compile. It may compile, but won't pass the test. Are you under the impression that a developer suddenly becomes blind after compilation and somehow magically won't see that the test failed? That doe
2509.
by 9rx 2y ago
Okay, sure. Here is an explicit code example: func foo(bar func() error) bool { err := bar() if err != nil { return true } return false } func TestFooReturnsTrueWhenBa
2510.
by 9rx 2y ago
What is to be acknowledge, exactly? By Go convention, values are to always be "useful", so the error is only significant if you need to use the error value for some reason. They are not logically intertwined like you have postulat
2511.
by 9rx 2y ago
No, definitely not. The compiler couldn't care less if your arguments are correct. Consider: func cleanupTemporaryDir() { os.RemoveAll("/") } You might have some very unhappy users if you ship that. Of
2512.
by 9rx 2y ago
> It is literally impossible to "forget" if you have pattern matching + algebraic data types/enum/unions. No, it's entirely possible to forget. That should be obvious. It is a functional necessity for you to be
2513.
by 9rx 2y ago
> By forgetting. Like in the same way you might forget to write pattern matching code? I mean, that's possible, but the checks and balances are going to let you know. In light of that, what is the significance of forgetting for th
2514.
by 9rx 2y ago
> So you can forget to check an error, not notice, and ship a bug. How would you forget, exactly? Your tests are going to blow in your face should you ever leave out an entire feature from the implementation. If you forgot to document
2515.
by 9rx 2y ago
Agreed. The reduction in boilerplate to route error conditions is what we really need, if we are going to add any special error concept. errors.Is/errors.As and the accompanying switch/if statements can quickly consume entire scre
2516.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Taylor was instrumental in bringing generics to the language, this proposal is worth taking seriously. He submitted, what, 8 failed generics proposals before Phil Wadler came in to figure out what he was missing? I don't mean to
2517.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Are these wasted resources, too? Given your take, this is a meaningless question, no? As you point out, all resource usage that lead up to the creation of the diesel engine were necessary preconditions. While one might be able to ima
2518.
by 9rx 2y ago
> more than 90% were in code written after 5pm. Intriguing. Did you find that remained true through DST periods, assuming DST observance? Meaning, did you find that it was literally the clock that determined when bugs would seep in, or
2519.
by 9rx 2y ago
> Technically, all the Nvidia stock (and virtually all stocks in the US) are owned by Cede and Co. Technically, but they extend ownership. An ETF is a different type of abstraction. Which you already know because you spoke about that a
2520.
by 9rx 2y ago
Weeks can be a long time if it doesn't work out. And that is, by your own comment, in the good times. The good times don't last forever. Upon some dice roll it is going to turn, and when that one doesn't work out now you coul

More ›