Quekid5

70 ms·

871.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I was talking about a mismatched field name. What case are you talking about? EDIT: Actually, responding to > Strong typing generally doesn't speak to "how many values this expression should produce" Have you heard of affi
872.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> you can do the same derivation of data from a master entity with or without strong typing (though my preference is always for strong typing, which jq lacks). Yes, of course you can. The point is that the strong typing helps prevent ina
873.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Since there are no side effects in Dhall you can always just impose an arbitrary timeout if you really want to. IME, it's really rare to stumble upon pathological complexity like the Ackermann function. You basically have to go out o
874.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Sure, I'm familiar with it. It's nothing compared to what Dhall can do. ... unless of course it's grown to a similar point. As of about a year ago, for some complex transformations I had to stitch together multiple invocation
875.
by Quekid5 7y ago
One valuable point of Dhall is that it is programmable (yet not TC) in such a way to that you can e.g. describe a whole system entirely in Dhall and then (in Dhall!) derive whatever further configurations (plural!) you need from that. T
876.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Ah, yes. My bad... I missed that crucial detail. Still, maybe a non-TC protocol language could fulfill the criteria?
877.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Indeed. It's a smilar thing in Scala, and I actually find it kind of limiting because Scala (like Rust, AFAIK) doesn't have "where expressions" or "declare a function without types just because", so you're
878.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> But type inference in Rust and in Haskell can get pretty wacky, with the type determined by code half a page away. Hence the general guideline (in Haskell at least) that all top-level definitions should have a type ascription. You can
879.
by Quekid5 7y ago
As a data point: I use Scala + IntelliJ and I've personally actually turned this off . If you have a half-way decent type system I tend to find that it just gets in the way -- at least if things have reasonable names. (This is obvio
880.
by Quekid5 7y ago
While I agree with the desire for experimental data, you're assuming that the status quo[1] is the right answer. There's no evidence that it is -- the reason it wasn't mainstream until recently was mainly fear of going agains
881.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I think Erlang does? I don't really know Erlang, but AFAIK there's no way to share anything mutable between processes. Any data which is shared is (semantically) copied when it's sent to a different process. (Ignoring FFI, an
882.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I suppose it's a subset of "well defined rules", but it's worth calling out explicitly, I think: Chess also has an objective (and trivially verifiable) win condition. There are few interesting situations in real life whe
883.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Andrei Alexandrescu had a great talk[0] on allocators and this convinced me that if you really care about allocator performance[1] what you need is a tunable and composable system. The whole idea of how and when (runtime/compile-
884.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> Building a distributed system isn't hard per-se. I think this may be a bit overstated. It's certainly true that most of the algorithms, etc. are -- if not necessarily simple -- at least understandable/understood genera
885.
by Quekid5 7y ago
What? I'm really struggling to find the nugget of 'point' in there, but... what? Are you saying that Gravity is somehow biased toward powerful people? Are you saying that refraction is somehow biased toward powerful people? I
886.
by Quekid5 7y ago
"something" = "leverage". Disprove that. As a bonus point, leverage is exactly what you may be giving them by licensing with the BSD/MIT/... There's no guarantee that they'll gain leverage, but if t
887.
by Quekid5 7y ago
> It enriches everyone, even those who I don't necessarily agree with. That's definitely a valid PoV, but you just have to realize/accept that it may empower people who have power over you. I'm mostly talking about ec
888.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Somewhat related: The last version of Chromium said "Press Alt+F and then X" instead of Ctrl-Shift-Q when I tried to quit it using that key combo. Unfortunately, Alt+F is trivially overridable by web pages (Twitch.tv in this case
889.
by Quekid5 7y ago
So, no. The answer is no. EDIT: it's absurd that people continue to fall for this nonsense, but here we are, I guess.
890.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Yeah, seems like: a) category error: The simplicity in the example is due to immutability, not language choice. b) familiarity bias: I've learned X therefore it's simpler than Y. (It might be true, but you'd need a lot more s
891.
by Quekid5 7y ago
Indeed. Even if you don't believe in it at a philosophical level, you don't exactly have any choice in the matter. We all behave as if we have free will -- the only alternative would be to just stop doing anything (e.g. being ca
892.
by Quekid5 7y ago
I think the poster is talking about something along the lines of bisimulation[1]. No need to solve the halting problem for that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisimulation
893.
by Quekid5 8y ago
AFAICT this has descended into semantics at this point. The difference between "blind faith" and what the Catholic church would call "reasoned faith" doesn't seem at all relevant if one doesn't accept (logica
894.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Wow. NTNOCN could be quite hit and miss, but that sketch was absolutely spot on.
895.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Ah. The reason I ask is that the ending I saw could be interpreted either way, but I saw the 'happy' ending as obvious satire/irony. I'm just worried that I saw the wrong ending and over-interpreted it.
896.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Now I'm worried that I haven't seen the right version. Is there a breakdown of the different versions floating around somewhere?
897.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Fantastic and fantastical yet so so so bleak. I find the bleakness beautiful in a weird way, but I think it's a film that presupposes a certain mental fortitude.
898.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Indeed, and what's worse is that many managers[1] will stop listening after "Yes, ...". [1] The incompetent ones, of which there are many.
899.
by Quekid5 8y ago
This has also been formulated even more succinctly/pithily as > When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. (Unknown author.)
900.
by Quekid5 8y ago
Are you being sarcastic? I can't tell. Any modern CPU and GPU can do a lot of DMA and copying of memory in a very short amount of time, but that doesn't mean it'll be efficient wrt. power... which is what I think you were &#x

More ›