Peaker

51 ms·

481.
by Peaker 13y ago
I think the majority of people who disagree that nullability everywhere is a mistake, as an example, are people who've only ever used languages that had that bug.
482.
by Peaker 13y ago
Concepts and good ideas being repeated and stolen is great! However, the problem is repeating mistakes . Go's nullability, lack of generics, ... Node doing manual CPS where past work (e.g: Haskell) does non-blocking IO without forci
483.
by Peaker 13y ago
I was (mostly) happily using C and Python 5 years ago. Now I'm much happier using C and Haskell.
484.
by Peaker 13y ago
I agree with most of what you are saying. The similarity is definitely not a physical one at an atomic level, but indeed at a very high level of abstraction. If we compare two computers running the same algorithm, one could be ARM, one coul
485.
by Peaker 13y ago
Firstly, I don't claim this view of mine is in any way scientific. It cannot make predictions, be refuted, etc. It's just an interpretation of a model, not a model. Secondly, I am not claiming there is a causal effect going on
486.
by Peaker 13y ago
I have an unusual opinion about this, that I can only convince a tiny minority of :) I see the brain here as a completely mechanical thing. Your brain is very similar to other people's brains, and their sets of inputs to their brain is
487.
by Peaker 13y ago
Even if that were true -- does it mean that Nintendo will avoid creating the next game because of less profits? I think the answer is obviously not. Therefore, depriving society of this value in order to incentivize Nintendo with higher pro
488.
by Peaker 13y ago
LC is a really really really simple language. One of the simplest languages that is Turing Complete. It has 3 syntactic forms that build its AST: lambda functions (that bring variables into scope), applications (of functions to arguments),
489.
by Peaker 13y ago
Creating derivative works is the most productive avenue for creativity. By requiring a license for it, it is virtually banned. Society loses out on a huge body of derivative works. Note, virtually all works are derivative works, except that
490.
by Peaker 13y ago
MS are unique in calling their C library a "Runtime library". Commonly, a support system that does GC and other automatic management for managed languages is called a "runtime", and the various common functions available
491.
by Peaker 13y ago
About pharma patents, I think many have been misled, as this explanation from the Pirate Party seems very credible: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/an-alterna...
492.
by Peaker 13y ago
They made a derivative work that added value to many people. And the law said that derivative works are generally banned, and society should be deprived of them. So their hard work to make Mario work for many people in the browser should be
493.
by Peaker 13y ago
A "Runtime" and a "standard library" are different things. There are a lot of (annoying to install) libraries for C.
494.
by Peaker 13y ago
Firstly, a data pointer is allowed to be a different size from a function pointer (although in most platforms they are the same size). Secondly, what he said is that pointers are not just addresses, but typed addresses that know what type
495.
by Peaker 13y ago
I don't doubt there is much password reuse. Like the original complaint, I don't think the data point has value because reusing passwords on same site implies nothing on different sites.
496.
by Peaker 13y ago
You're looking under the flashlight. A better analysis could be done if it were compared with another password leak from another site. But even if there's no better analysis, the best analysis may still be severely broken.
497.
by Peaker 13y ago
> If changing internal functions results in breakages, then I don't know what else you'd call it except a breaking change. It's not the change itself that broke things. It's the combination of two changes that you g
498.
by Peaker 13y ago
> Aside from that - most people simply avoid making a breaking change - or if it absolutely must be made, then a process is followed. Changing internal functions is not considered a "breaking change" by anyone I know. You'
499.
by Peaker 13y ago
So basically you need to use strict ownership at API boundaries as that is the only way to avoid this. This isn't always optimal. It sounds like you're sacrificing quite a few goats at the js altar for no real benefit. Your quest
500.
by Peaker 13y ago
No, it's much more like git ignoring wrong command syntax and just using undefined instead. git commit - m"Hi" && git push Let's push a commit with an undefined message, and ignore the m"Hi" argu
501.
by Peaker 13y ago
> You don't have to check every every arg to check the count is correct if that's something you're concerned about. Nor does checking args are undefined require a line per since you could check them all with a single asser
502.
by Peaker 13y ago
It seems you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about library APIs here. I am talking about internal function signatures inside a single product developed by multiple codevelopers. All your replies about external APIs changing are ir
503.
by Peaker 13y ago
> I'm not missing the point, and I don't agree that it hides an error and gives a cryptic bug. It hides the error by carrying on, despite having the wrong number of arguments, and executing code with thus necessarily wrong inpu
504.
by Peaker 13y ago
> Except it clearly is possible since I and millions of other developers seem to manage it daily. Clearly possible to fix code that's in branches/working trees that you don't even have access to?? > This is a problem of
505.
by Peaker 13y ago
You're missing the point. A static language catches the error at compile-time. A dynamic language catches the error at run-time. Javascript hides the error and gives a cryptic bug, instead.
506.
by Peaker 13y ago
> If you're making changes to a function signature in JS without assessing the impact for code elsewhere, then you're doing a bad job - and that's all there is to it. Given that other people are working on the same code ba
507.
by Peaker 13y ago
I'd say it's worse than a default behavior, since there's no sane way to reverse the default. Are explicit arg list checks really an option, when you want to opt out of the default? I'd say that's not practical at
508.
by Peaker 13y ago
How do you ignore it? Ignoring it means accepting cryptic bugs that result from signature changes. You say "use to your advantage", but what's the advantage? You could have a "*args" like Python, and get the benefit
509.
by Peaker 13y ago
That may hit an upper bound, above which you have to rewrite in a different language. That upper bound may be quite low.
510.
by Peaker 13y ago
The problem is the design here is to trade errors that could be detected with cryptic bugs that can slip through. Or alternatively, adding insane per-function overhead/testing to manually cover signature checking.

More ›