adwn

9 ms·

121.
by adwn 1y ago
> like the entire point of my comment is that people have misguided criteria for evaluating build systems, and your comment seems to just affirm this? I think dev_l1x_be's comment is meant to imply that your believe about people h
122.
by adwn 1y ago
> Other than an irrational fear of them „phoning home“ There's nothing rational about believing this fear is irrational.
123.
by adwn 1y ago
What makes you think that? Especially given that fact that GI (without the 'A') is evidently very much possible with only a tiny fraction of the "totality of human knowledge".
124.
by adwn 1y ago
I think the discrepancy between different views on the matter mainly stems from the fact that state-of-the-art LLMs are better (sometimes extremely better) at some tasks, and worse (sometimes extremely worse) at other tasks, compared to ave
125.
by adwn 1y ago
I think that would be of little help if the faster, less-secure cores have access to the same memory system as the secure cores. If the JavaScript engine of your browser runs on the fast cores, and you're visiting a malicious website,
126.
by adwn 1y ago
> It makes sense that the the economically struggling former communist areas would be both more drawn to extreme parties and have a distaste for the left. That: "have a distaste for the left" is extremely wrong, because befor
127.
by adwn 1y ago
> they pretend that it's only because x86 somehow cheats and converts itself to RISC internally. Which hasn't even been the case anymore for several years now. Some µOPs in modern x86-64 cores combine memory access with arith
128.
by adwn 1y ago
You're losing sight of the full picture: This "optimization" was such a hindrance that they had to rewrite the compiler before they could work on the ecosystem of their new language. From kristoff_it's comment [1]: &gt
129.
by adwn 1y ago
> IIRC, it was a performance thing […] Why would you care about these kinds of micro-optimizations at that stage of development, when you don't even know what exactly you need to build? We're not talking about serious algorit
130.
by adwn 1y ago
> […] Zig was still using the bootstrap compiler written in C++ that would not free memory […] That sounds strange. Modern C++ requires very little manual memory management, at least when you're writing something high-level like a
131.
by adwn 1y ago
Is following the "Unix way" a terminal value? I.e., is it desirable for itself, or is it just supposed to be a means to an end? In discussions such as these, the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" is often
132.
by adwn 1y ago
> You've learned something new today. Enjoy. Indeed: I learned that you're a condescending ass who doesn't engage with the actual argument I brought up.
133.
by adwn 1y ago
I get what you're saying, but following this line of reasoning would mean that successful, wide-spread specifications, standards, and technologies must never drop any features. They would only ever accumulate new features, bloating to
134.
by adwn 1y ago
And I'm sure there are people who program in Notepad or nano. If you want to develop software like it's the 80s again, go ahead, the rest of us appreciates at least basic IDE support.
135.
by adwn 1y ago
> the whole post is an opinion piece. It's not. The author gives objective reasons why Python's syntax is inferior – namely, that it makes IDE support in the form of discoverability and auto-completion more difficult.
136.
by adwn 1y ago
Strictly speaking, Cargo isn't part of the Rust programming language itself. Cargo is a layer on top of Rust, and you can use the Rust compiler completely independently of Cargo. I think bazel , for example, can compile and handle dep
137.
by adwn 1y ago
No, dangerous behavior should be opt-in , not opt-out. In 99.9 % of integer additions, overflow-is-UB won't make any difference performance-wise, but may still screw you over if you're unlucky. In the 0.1 % of cases where there&#
138.
by adwn 1y ago
You're objectively wrong. This code isn't bad, it's concise and fast (even without the compiler pattern-matching it to whatever overflow-detecting machine instructions happen to be available), and it would be valid and idio
139.
by adwn 1y ago
> I for one am glad that compilers can assume that things that can't happen according to the language do in fact not happen and don't bloat my programs with code to handle them. Yes, unthinkable happenstances like addition o
140.
by adwn 1y ago
Do you remember any specifics? For example, the size of the copy, whether it was a NUMA system, or the total bandwidth of your system RAM?
141.
by adwn 1y ago
> The operation of copying data is super easy to parallelize across multiple threads. […] This will make the copy super-fast especially if the CPU has a large core count. I seriously doubt that. Unless you have a NUMA system, a single
142.
by adwn 1y ago
> "so if we make it execute in 0 seconds, does it mean you're going to make an infinite amount of money?" I don't get it. Wouldn't going from 1 second to 0 seconds add the same amount of money to the yearly pro
143.
by adwn 1y ago
> I think sending messages is more about the way you think about concurrency, more than the implementation. That's a valid point of view, but Pony's claim to which I objected is about performance, not ease-of-use or convenien
144.
by adwn 1y ago
Why is this downvoted? It's factually correct, on-topic, and relevant (because it contradicts a claim on the linked website). If you disagree, say so and we can discuss it.
145.
by adwn 1y ago
> Sending a message between Actors can be just moving a pointer to a piece of shared memory. No, you also need synchronization operations on the sending and the receiving end, even if you have a single sender and a single receiver.
146.
by adwn 1y ago
> A contended mutex is a system call […] Because modern mutexes are so cheap (only 1 byte directly in the data structure, no heap allocation), you can do very fine-grained locking. This way, a mutex will almost never be contended. Keep
147.
by adwn 1y ago
> The standard way to avoid these problems is to use locks to prevent data updates from happening at the same time. This causes big performance hits […] No. Modern mutex implementations [1] are extremely efficient, require only 1 byte
148.
by adwn 1y ago
Yes, because we should never ever try to improve the society we live in. Our only options should be to a) run away, and b) shut up and take it.
149.
by adwn 1y ago
Please don't just link to another video or article without a comment or at least a short description. Why should I watch this 1 hour long video?
150.
by adwn 1y ago
> This almost seems to be a weird artefact of capitalism. I don't see how this would be causally linked to capitalism in any meaningful way.

More ›