Quekid5

38 ms·

331.
by Quekid5 4y ago
It runs counter to variance rules for method signatures; see pron's sibling comment and my reply to that. I'm not exactly sure what he's alluding to in terms of an actual solution, but he is an insider, so there may be hope
332.
by Quekid5 4y ago
> The problem is generifying over checked exceptions (i.e. parametric polymorphism over checked exceptions), and there's actually an elegant solution that's been long known -- so the "corner" was well-noticed, as well
333.
by Quekid5 4y ago
It's the only sane way. Checked exceptions were a fundamental mistake which basically makes it impossible to actually use (non-RuntimeException derived) exceptions reliably for their intended purpose. As soon as you introduce any hig
334.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I would advise against doing anything more than checking for an @... and, I guess, at least one character on either side of that. Just send a verification link in an email instead. (The fact that an email address is syntactically valid is a
335.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The bike could have disappeared, then re-appeared and disappeared again, tho. So you might be finding the "wrong" thief. (Btw, I realize it's just an anecdote, I'm just being extremely nitpicky.)
336.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Maybe I'm just being dense, but I don't see how that would work. The bike's presence is not a monotonic property -- so you never know which half of the search space you need to descend into. (In fact, you don't even know
337.
by Quekid5 4y ago
If it's for recovery, etc. then that may not be a real issue? EDIT: Anyway, I'd probably only ever rely on an external USB stick, but I don't know how that interacts with Secure Boot, tbh. I use Ventoy + loads of images of po
338.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I like this point, but I'm not sure exactly how well concepts such as velocity and time, etc. were understood. They were certainly thinking about it, but even the idea of no action meaning constant motion (without other forces) was abo
339.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The base of the log is usually 32 or similar, so it's practically always bounded by... 6. (That's for a billion keys, for example.)
340.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I believe so. See https://sqlite.org/consortium.html for how they're funded. Plus of course you can pay for SQLite itself with various levels of support, etc. See: https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html
341.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I was mostly thinking of the #1 mentioned by actinium226 in a sibling post, fwiw. The main other thing I was thinking of was that GC languages sometimes have features that are very hard to support sensibly in non-GC languages: My favorite
342.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I'd call that a straw man. Very little code is written that way, so it doesn't apply in practice, like... at all. Also: unless you have very specific requirements there are probably easier languages+tools to write proven-correct
343.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Not to put too fine a point on it, but "side effects" != mutation. Also: The level of control offered by Rust comes at a steep cost compared to GC'd languages.
344.
by Quekid5 4y ago
> The error here is not that they are wrapping the exception necessarily. It is that they re-threw it as an unchecked exception. You often don't have a choice. Think of generic interfaces -- for example the humble apply method on h
345.
by Quekid5 4y ago
> If the caller has no way to handle it, it should wrap the checked exception in an unchecked exception and throw the unchecked exception. Not you have a new problem: How is the code calling the caller supposed to know about that excep
346.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Nothing in particular that I wouldn't have predicted (from a detailed reading of the tech). I guess one thing to always keep in mind that these are frameworks that are limited by the client<->server interaction as a critical path
347.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The only real advice I can offer is: Try to implement an example of the most complicated UI interaction that you have in your (conceptual) application in both and then decide. Development-by-random-recommendation is usually a recipe for dis
348.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The designers of Go should have known this. It was designed 20-30 years after ML/Haskell.
349.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Not sure what you mean by "heavy" frontend, but you might want to look into LiveViewJS (and/or similar) if there's a lot of frontend iteractivity, but you still want to do most of the logic/interaction on the backen
350.
by Quekid5 4y ago
> Does it really prevent the Ken Thompson attack though? Well, it means the attacker has to be a committer to keep the attack from eventually breaking, or that the attack will eventually break. If the attack is sufficiently well squirrel
351.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Go absolutely wasn't. It has been obvious since ML and Haskell.
352.
by Quekid5 4y ago
Oof, I'm happy it was just non-private data! Regardless, this makes an excellent case for strongly typed wrappers as you mention at the end. Our general approach is to use UUIDv4 for identifiers (so the chance of mistaking-one-for-anot
353.
by Quekid5 4y ago
There are no viable alternatives to vaccines and medicine in general (ones that actually work, that is). There are alternatives to C -- for most cases. > My Reddit app crashes several times a day, and I guess there is no immediate dang
354.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The key idea is that Unison code is in a sort of "normal form", such that e.g. what names you give things doesn't matter at all.
355.
by Quekid5 4y ago
False sharing, maybe?
356.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The evidence in the form of CVEs suggests that we don't get it right. > You mean the vector::operator[] is an example of fast-and-potentially-UB ? I don't see any UB if the constraints are met (keeping the index within valid ra
357.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I'm not sure what to say. You're replying in the context of a post about why people literally do not and cannot get it right 100% of the time. Thinking so is pure hubris. (And demonstrably so.) EDIT: The fundamental problem with t
358.
by Quekid5 4y ago
I... might get that one. I've only read snippets, but the "running shoes" bit always gets me :D
359.
by Quekid5 4y ago
The stuff of nightmares. You might say... nightmare fuel.
360.
by Quekid5 4y ago
> but I do have a feeling that every time I see safety issues in C++ (or C) they can almost always be addressed by using an already existing safe alternative, I mean, the almost-simplest abstraction possible the std::vector has potential

More ›