bjz_

37 ms·

331.
by bjz_ 11y ago
I would be against giving the more expensive type the shorter name. That said, I kind of agree with Steve that having a `Buf` suffix would help.
332.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Oh you wouldn't believe the huge amount of bikeshedding that went into the naming of `String` and `str`. :) The end result might not be the nicest - to my eyes at least - but at least a decision was made!
333.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Exactly. The complexity is inherent in the domain, and making it seem simpler by sweeping it under the carpet is not solving the problem, and it will result in hard to find bugs when working at scale.
334.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Rust's moves are implicit, making it easier to write code that doesn't copy heap allocated memory, and you can't get 'use after moves' like in C++ - the type system will pick that up.
335.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Same with Ruby. So hard to understand what is going on - and unlike Scala there is not even any and typechecking to help.
336.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Surely you could just write the SMT solver in templates, right? ;)
337.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Do you use much in the way of formal specifications? I've heard that Amazon currently uses TLA+ to verify the semantics of their systems.
338.
by bjz_ 11y ago
You need four-spaced indents to create code blocks.
339.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Yes! And the reverse has happened with Servo. Originally it was mainly a bag of C libraries with some layout code, then gradually they began swapping the pieces out for the Rust counterparts. This is how new software can be written - bootst
340.
by bjz_ 11y ago
By removing memory safety bugs, it allows reviewers to focus on the more important sources of vulnerabilities - the things that the compiler can't check. On that front, it is also worth noting that Rust has a much richer type system th
341.
by bjz_ 11y ago
> Of all the complaints I can think of regarding C++, the one I care least about is the difficulty in disambiguating the grammar Compile time speed? Refactoring? Jump-to-definition? Autocomplete? Intellisense? Those are all important for
342.
by bjz_ 11y ago
> Rust is small enough to grok in a day I would say it is far easier to learn how to write good systems code in Rust than C++, but saying you can grok it in a day is a bit optimistic. On the surface level, perhaps. But the semantics of
343.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Great to hear! We are moving more and more to AWS at work, and it would be great to use Rust with it!
344.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Ad-hoc polymorphism (traits/type classes) and parametric polymorphism (generics) largely solves this, whilst giving you a high degree of confidence that your code correct at compile time. I've found code written in a duck-typed st
345.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Still no type inference, pattern matching, or ADTs. In a statically typed language that causes lots of verbose ceremony that shouldn't be needed in the 21st century. We've known how to do this stuff for decades. That said, I would
346.
by bjz_ 11y ago
pnkfelix (from Mozilla) has been doing lots of investigation into custom allocators[0], custom GCs, and embedding Rust into places where a GC is already active. He also recently published some blog posts outlining the problem of GC interop[
347.
by bjz_ 11y ago
One perspective could be that Rust is the more interesting talking point, even if you don't work on it in the job you are actually applying for. But if you purely want to get a job in one or the other, Go is currently much more widely
348.
by bjz_ 11y ago
I'm looking forward to it! I really want to flex some Rust muscle at work for our performance critical stuff.
349.
by bjz_ 11y ago
`===` is triple stroked in these fonts, but that is probably not enough for you. Just saying though! :)
350.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Emotional inoculation?
351.
by bjz_ 11y ago
They weren't really professional programmers though, from what I gather? Tarn was a professional mathematician. And the code base was started earlier than 2006.
352.
by bjz_ 11y ago
> To the people trying to blame it on human activity it should. It just shows that the climate can change due to natural processes, and that it can change by a great deal if conditions are right. This could happen for a number of reaso
353.
by bjz_ 11y ago
We used to use LICEcap at my old work for that.
354.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Purescript is eager - not lazy. Didn't have trouble with 123456... the key-presses did seem a tad slower though. I'm on Firefox Developer.
355.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Choppy on Firefox Developer Edition too.
356.
by bjz_ 11y ago
One of the issues I've found with the TAPL examples and Grow-Your-Own-Type-System implementations is the lack of explicit, top-level type definitions. I know whole-program type inference is great and all, and ML programmers love to sho
357.
by bjz_ 11y ago
> Reflection doesn't get in the way of type safety (in fact, it's generally supported by it) Perhaps my terminology was incorrect there. It's more that it gets in the way of static verification, and makes it much harder to
358.
by bjz_ 11y ago
Doesn't reflection make lots of things harder to debug and understand? Why should one need to take on the ugly patterns of other ecosystems? It also kills many of the good points of statically typed languages - ie. type safety, ease of
359.
Multiple discovery(en.wikipedia.org)
1 points by bjz_ 11y ago|0 comments
360.
by bjz_ 11y ago
> the compiler now detects this situation and tries to explain what's going on. Oh really? That's great news! I remember having that problem earlier this year and thinking that it wasn't the greatest from a usability stand

More ›