Quekid5

40 ms·

511.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Disagree slightly with the "sophomoric" bit -- it's just that wiki code is usually meant to be Pseudocode, I think. My objection to that term is only because being at the beginning of a learning curve isn't bad per se. N
512.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Might be interesting as an option for the @lru_cache decorator to be able to specify a function to call before handing a cached value to the user. Then you could just do @lru_cache(post=deepcopy, ...) to have a new (copied) instanc
513.
by Quekid5 5y ago
One perhaps-interesting use case might be to use the fastest possible solver in the case of compiling generated/foreign code, so basically code that's expected to always compile (but which still needs to be checked for safety). On
514.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Exactly. Us engineering types tend to underestimate how much intent and judgment matters when it comes to matters of malpractice (and similar) laws.
515.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I think the person you replied to might be jesting :)... ... but, yes, if you find yourself in that type of situation and powerless to change it[0], move on. [0] "Maybe give it a couple of tries. If that doesn't change anything, g
516.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I don't imagine they have much say in the matter, alas.
517.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Hit the nail on the head, at least as far as my concerns go. Security is a constant issue with humans writing code. Do we really want an "AI" that understands neither code nor security spitting out snippets of code to pasted i
518.
by Quekid5 5y ago
This is exactly right. It encourages people to Commit Whenever They Want To, secure in the knowledge that people will never see my -- I mean their -- feeble intermediate attempts at working code. Committing frequently is good. It means th
519.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> ratio type if you need arbitrary precision. This is the better default, so I'd ditch the qualifier, personally. At the very least when it comes to the persistent storage of monetary amounts. People often start out thinking that
520.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I'm also under the impression that mathematicians generally work much more deeply with a smaller set of variables, so you actually don't need to name that many individual concepts. A typical program contains thousands and thousa
521.
by Quekid5 5y ago
PSA: Anyone can publish just about anything on arxiv.org. Doesn't mean that it has any merit whatsoever.
522.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I think they might be referring to Stringly Typed Programming.
523.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Monadic IO, Uniqueness types (as in: Clean), voluntarily working in a pure subset until the End of the World (Scala), effect-first languages, etc. We can impose actual semantics upon an ultimately imperative computer. Is it restrictive? Y
524.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> hardware RAID That's just the worst of all worlds: Usually proprietary and you get the extreme aversion to improvement (or any change really) of hardware vendors. This ZFS changes is going to come, and it may end up being comple
525.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> but ironically not to the people who are medical experts in SOME way. The dangerous thing about expertise in a very narrow area (which most medicine is these days) is that is bolsters confidence so much that you imagining yourself an e
526.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> The popular answer was that projects change too fast and he doesn not have time to maintain docs. I sort of agree with this, but rather from the perspective that often the effort required to maintain documentation isn't in proport
527.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I agree that it's important to learn these lessons, but if recent history has taught us anything it's that reach and amplification will drown out most voices of reason. I think Vimes might have had an aphorism about this... EDIT:
528.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Confusion abounds :D > Sure. But if you're a FOSS project that they've contributed code to, with or without copyright assignment, that doesn't help you. You've still got to rip it out. That was kind of my point, at
529.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Just for clarification: Do you equate type ascriptions to "more code"?
530.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> Yes, and this is where statically typed languages shine (in my opinion). Indeed. This feels like a just-before-the-moment-of-realization situation. The endless cycle between "more dynamic" and "more static" continue
531.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I think you might be missing context for the thread? Or maybe I'm inferring context that isn't there. I thought we were discussing the "no copyright assignment" scenario. > But if you do so and release it without no
532.
by Quekid5 5y ago
This might be just a few levels of people talking past each other, but just in case: Yes, the full "standard libarary" you can expect to be present on any given JS VM may vary, but there's no plausible reason that e.g. at() s
533.
by Quekid5 5y ago
When writing GPL'ed code for your employer your employer must obviously be (made) aware that that code is going to be licensed under the GPL. Therefore, as the copyright holder -- they have already given permission for that license to
534.
by Quekid5 5y ago
Most users have no idea of what is even possible with a computer, organization-wise. I don't disagree that interfaces should be designed for users, but they should be designed to EMPOWER and teach users, not to just dumb everything d
535.
by Quekid5 5y ago
I'm afraid I still don't understand the workflow. I continually rebase my branch(es) on top of upstream. At any time, I can choose to consolidate a few of my WIP commits into a more (logically) cohesive commit and keep that around
536.
by Quekid5 5y ago
> Another important fact is that you don't need to wait till a feature-branch is complete to edit the history. Why would you need to wait until it's complete? I don't feel any need to do that, and I'm constantly rebas
537.
by Quekid5 5y ago
NFT is tulips all over again, basically.
538.
by Quekid5 5y ago
What are they to do, exactly? Optimization is a very 'generic' process and application programmers want optimization. The only sensible thing to do is to assume UB cannot occur and optimize accordingly. What else is there? I can a
539.
by Quekid5 5y ago
It's not some great mystery: Very few people are doing low-latency in Java in the first place, and all of the people who are have probably been doing it for a long time (in Java) already so there's a non-trivial cost to switching
540.
by Quekid5 5y ago
They choose not to officially support it precisely because of the types of issues that upgrading e.g. glibc or openssl can cause. That said, the vast majority of the time only upgrading a particular application/package (and its depende

More ›