Dewie

50 ms·

481.
by Dewie 12y ago
So you would, for example, go up to someone that you see regularly but who you don't know and try to get to know them, either through some generic opener/remark/question or more bluntly ('Hi! I've seen you around he
482.
by Dewie 12y ago
> I think most people here agree with that statement. Partly because people want more people that are like themselves. Which is ironically the problem with this whole gender imbalance thing in the first place.
483.
by Dewie 12y ago
If you say so. In my experience women aren't any more social than men in a setting full of mutual strangers, which I guess these busses full of strangers are.
484.
by Dewie 12y ago
> I find that really sad and can certainly say if there were at least 30% women on those buses nearly everyone would know each other a little. Why?
485.
by Dewie 12y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they did. But this comment seems a bit derailing in this context.
486.
by Dewie 12y ago
I think "blub" is just another example of "you don't know what you don't know", which is always going to be relevant. And not everyone have tried, or intend on trying, obscure/sophisticated/mind-bendi
487.
by Dewie 12y ago
Rust 0.1 came out in the beginning of 2012, about 3 months before Go 1.0 game out (or go1). In the meantime, Rust has changed a lot and is only now close to a 1.0 release.
488.
by Dewie 12y ago
How does regions fit into this? IIRC regions have deterministic lifetimes, and all values/objects allocated in a region are freed in bulk when the region is freed (so it seems to only depend on how complex the underlying allocation is)
489.
by Dewie 12y ago
Sadly though I haven't been able to find any mention of if and when it will be realized. But the sentiment - from what I've gleaned from discussions on it - seems to be that something like that should/need to happen.
490.
by Dewie 12y ago
> , but I haven't seen a way to swap out the memory allocator in various contexts. You mean something like this? https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/244 I think part of it was inspired by something
491.
by Dewie 12y ago
> The only downside to ARC Doesn't reference counting typically have a worse throughput than garbage collection? That's what I've read anyway.
492.
by Dewie 12y ago
> , we were calling Go a "systems language" And maybe in another 5 years, people will stop bickering over whether that description is/was appropriate. :)
493.
by Dewie 12y ago
> But even if we assume it is not, it can't be measured which is why it is difficult to reward But isn't it more measurable than what an MBA in a senior/executive position does? If being part of writing a large software sy
494.
by Dewie 12y ago
But if it were true that there is such a vast programmer productivity/competence variance (you know, "10X"), there should be a lot more room for distinguished engineers or whatever you want to call them. Sure, if you assume a
495.
by Dewie 12y ago
I know, but in Rust's case it was more straightforward to call it Ok/Err since that was the majority use-case. Personally I prefer Either, since then you have a more generic sum type, just like the tuple type is a more generic pro
496.
by Dewie 12y ago
As far as I understand, and if no extra care is taken on the part of the programmer: the extra copying, since you would have to copy over the data from one variable to another instead of just using and moving around pointers. In Parasail&#x
497.
by Dewie 12y ago
Note that the document seems to be from the spring of last year. I think it is interesting that Parasail has no explicit pointers and only uses value semantics. This means that no garbage collection is needed: the storage associated with a
498.
by Dewie 12y ago
> "Result" is not typically a word one would search for. It was renamed from the more generic (type-wise) "Either", because the two tags (Left and Right) didn't feel very descriptive when it was used as a error-o
499.
by Dewie 12y ago
If we swapped the language, he might as well also have said: > The other language is named Nimrod... or perhaps it is Nim... I'm actually not sure ;).
500.
by Dewie 12y ago
The way I see it is that you can reduce bugs by increasing the level of abstraction, which in this case means to use things that are more straightforward and less flexible: the ultimate looping-construct is arguably the while-loop, by using
501.
by Dewie 12y ago
Some people like to live dangerously.
502.
by Dewie 12y ago
Programming Language Research is Irrelevant, or at least in Pike's world.
503.
by Dewie 12y ago
I liked Rob Pike's driveby comment - programmers these days...
504.
by Dewie 12y ago
> Does 'the language prevents errors at compile time' really mean 'better function signatures in the standard library'? Because that's all I'm getting out of the regex example given. Of course any function c
505.
by Dewie 12y ago
It sounds like we have similar setups. I use xmonad with no system trays - if I need something that happens to be a system tray, I'll ask for it and close it when I'm done with it. When I'm working in an application I don&#x2
506.
by Dewie 12y ago
Somewhat related: are downloading and storing webpages practical nowadays? The Web is obviously invaluable, but even in this day and age the infrastructure isn't perfectly reliable from the perspective of an end user. And there is a se
507.
by Dewie 12y ago
PCs are great for doing and solving a wide variety of stuff in the modern age. But we are at a point where people who care about usability should start to care more about limiting the utility and convenience of a computer. (Of course the
508.
by Dewie 12y ago
Windows 8.0 seems to have become especially bad when it comes to this. All of a sudden it will pop up and focus a (modal) window - all there is is the wallpaper (fuzzied) and the window, where did my application go? No Windows, I don't
509.
by Dewie 12y ago
> Common Lisp is not a ‘pure’ functional language, however, such as Haskell; it is multi-paradigm like OCaml. You can choose to use the functional paradigm in Common Lisp if you like, but you can also use Procedural, Object-Oriented, Eve
510.
by Dewie 12y ago
> Surely you agree that languages designed with one purpose in mind (a la Go and networking/server development) can reasonably do better at that purpose than an explicitly general-purpose language? I don't think that's a g

More ›