amw-zero

7 ms·

61.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Yes, but I think it's a revelation to many people that things like this map to queueing. Literally _everything_ related to performance is queueing, but we use different words for different scenarios, like "contention."
62.
by amw-zero 2y ago
It's the most "enjoyable" language to write in my opinion. I totally agree. I wish I got to use it more at work, now it's all Go and Python.
63.
by amw-zero 2y ago
This is an opportunity to learn. The way WebAssembly is defined is the standard way PL semantics are defined.
64.
by amw-zero 2y ago
I think it's much better to just learn how to read inference rules. They're actually quite simple, and are used ubiquitously to define PL semantics definitions. Constraining this on "that's not an option" is a big w
65.
Branch Coverage Won't Prove the Collatz Conjecture(concerningquality.com)
1 points by amw-zero 2y ago|0 comments
66.
by amw-zero 2y ago
> Users care quite a lot when these things break. Users care when their expected behavior breaks. They certainly do not care why it broke, or _where_ it broke. Most users don't know what a database is. > If I go down my recent li
67.
by amw-zero 2y ago
For "business applications," I much prefer the variant of property testing called model-based testing. This is where your property is "does the implementation behave like some simplified model." This is the correct way t
68.
Simulating Some Queues(concerningquality.com)
1 points by amw-zero 2y ago|0 comments
69.
by amw-zero 2y ago
We might not have exhausted their applications, but everything I’ve witnessed them being used for has been extremely disappointing. That is, other than me using them to bounce ideas off of and create small snippets of code.
70.
by amw-zero 2y ago
There’s a few different perspectives on this. One is, there isn’t much of a need to verify the implementation once you’ve verified an abstract specification. The costliest errors are _design_ mistakes, i.e. high-level errors that could neve
71.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Quint looks like _exactly_ what I’ve been looking for. It’s all the good parts of TLA+, but with sensible types, and a focus on executability. I understand that executability makes the language much less _powerful_ in a mathematical sense.
72.
by amw-zero 2y ago
I thought they meant that it just wasn’t enough money. Of course there are more important factors to a job than just compensation.
73.
by amw-zero 2y ago
And why is that?
74.
by amw-zero 2y ago
That’s not a hot take. Literally thousands of people have written and said this exact same thing, for years.
75.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Levels.fyi puts L6 at Amazon at over $400k. That’s not worth it?
76.
by amw-zero 2y ago
There’s nothing unique about go-jet. Jooq does the same thing for example.
77.
by amw-zero 2y ago
How does this make money? It says it’s free, and I don’t see any ads.
78.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Try making comments that are relevant to the article.
79.
by amw-zero 2y ago
What I’ve never understood about this approach is that it claims to be “network transparent,” but you need to add client and server annotations. So it’s very much network-aware.
80.
by amw-zero 2y ago
LLMs are really, really bad at proofs so far in my experience. Especially proofs in proof assistant since those are machine checked and unable to be faked.
81.
by amw-zero 2y ago
I also don't understand the obsession
82.
by amw-zero 2y ago
What a weird thing to care about
83.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Laughably bad advice. What's the failure rate of startups - 90%? This is less risky than a slightly crowded job market where there's still millions of jobs?
84.
by amw-zero 2y ago
That’s what I’m asking - did the comment mean that the async/await pattern is bad, or that asynchronous programming in general is bad?
85.
by amw-zero 2y ago
What does this even mean, how can you do any form of modern computation without async?
86.
by amw-zero 2y ago
Code written in F* is running in Firefox, Linux, Windows, and Azure: https://project-everest.github.io/ .
87.
by amw-zero 2y ago
This doesn't feel in contrast to what I was saying. You can reason about imperative code, but you have to add things to it to reason about it, most importantly the notion of a memory store. This is because imperative code assumes an un
88.
by amw-zero 2y ago
I've come to the conclusion that executability and reasoning are separate axes. If we view everything in terms of languages with interpreters, of course functional semantics must be executed by imperative machines. But to reason about
89.
by amw-zero 2y ago
This is precisely why humans will always be involved with creating software.
90.
by amw-zero 2y ago
This is why specification is much more important than verification / proof. We are bound by how accurate we make our propositions.

More ›