chowells

26 ms·

361.
by chowells 3y ago
It's perfectly acceptable to use nouns to modify nouns in English. "Beach house". "Stone hearth". "Microphone stand". Go looking for more, I bet you can find a lot. The distinguishing feature of an adjecti
362.
by chowells 3y ago
You could add methods that nothing could call, sure. It would be like replacing the value with an instance of an anonymous subclass with additional methods. Not useful, but fully possible. Ok, it would be slightly useful if those methods we
363.
by chowells 3y ago
> You can’t do monkeypatching or dynamically modify the inheritance chain of an object in a statically typed language. There's no theoretical reason you can't. No languages that I know of provide that combination features, beca
364.
by chowells 3y ago
You realize every single thing that dynamically-typed languages can do with data types, statically-typed languages can do too? Except when it matters, they can also choose to do things dynamically-typed languages can't. Lots of people
365.
by chowells 3y ago
You're right. I should at least give you an outline for the topic.
366.
by chowells 3y ago
Those books define laziness, and provide a couple examples - but they do not teach a programmer how to use it correctly. Correct use of laziness involves choosing sufficient space invariants, implementing them, and documenting them. This is
367.
by chowells 3y ago
I've skimmed that section and.. it's a case study of tracking down and fixing some space leaks. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about understanding laziness, such that you don't ever write code
368.
by chowells 3y ago
That long list of topics, and yet nothing on the critical one: understanding laziness. It turns out cargo-culting around a lack of understanding doesn't lead to good performance.
369.
by chowells 3y ago
> What is perplexing is the government has not allowed a “narrow bank” that simply passes deposits into treasuries Uh... what's perplexing about the fact that the government wants banks to offer loans?
370.
by chowells 3y ago
You could go the other way: the program is incorrect if it doesn't explicitly close files. Allowing incorrect programs to somehow work correctly only encourages programmers to create more advanced incorrect programs, until they exceed
371.
by chowells 3y ago
That's not an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem would be "you're a crackpot, so everyone should ignore you". That might be true, but it's not the claim I made. The claim I made is that you should learn some physics, and
372.
by chowells 3y ago
> you assume the universe is finite. This is a very long shot, not supported by mainstream science or theories > Software growth can leverage the increase gains from hardware (more storage density, lower power requirements etc) You sh
373.
by chowells 3y ago
You think there's a problem reminding readers that venerated people aren't good role models? Why? Why not strive to be better than them, intentionally moving past their flaws?
374.
by chowells 3y ago
Jesus Christ. Feminism is not the idea that women are weak and need donations from men to survive. Laws set up based on that assumption are very much not feminist.
375.
by chowells 3y ago
> (which I gather has been corrected) Indeed. In two different directions, even. First, a server can send a certificate with a large number of domain names in a field called "Subject Alternate Name" (SAN). If a server host a sm
376.
by chowells 3y ago
They meant "their cardinalities are equal". It's honestly an easy mistake to make, especially if typing on a small screen. Or especially if having a discussion where sizes of infinity are already being discussed.
377.
by chowells 3y ago
It's not a hack to create a new set and work out rules for how to use it which are both internally consistent and support easy morphisms with more familiar sets. It may not be easy , but it's hardly a hack. It's one of the b
378.
by chowells 3y ago
OAuth is easy in 2023. The problem is that OAuth does essentially nothing of interest by itself. It's a way to pass scoped access tokens. That's it. That's the end of the spec. If you want to do anything with those tokens,
379.
by chowells 3y ago
There is such a thing as coiteration in the category theory sense. It's related to the data/codata and recursion/corecursion distinction. To take a couple examples from the `free` package [1] for Haskell: iter :: Functo
380.
by chowells 4y ago
Yes, you're doing what the parent promises. You're setting up some initial values for internal accumulators and closing over values that don't change in preparation for the loop. Then maybe you do a bit of cleanup after the l
381.
by chowells 4y ago
That's a complete non-sequitor. I said that cultural roles should not be gendered. You responded that people have things they prefer to do. That is 100% orthogonal. People absolutely should be able to follow their preference so long as
382.
by chowells 4y ago
That question frames it in reverse. The right question is whether gender should be culturally important. And I can't think of a single reason why it's good for anyone for cultural roles to be predicated on gender. It hurts men jus
383.
by chowells 4y ago
That's a reasonable question. It comes down to being transparent with the compiler. Not redefining k and z at every step is what allows their values to be inlined. You could make an argument about a sufficiently advanced compiler and p
384.
by chowells 4y ago
I do. The name foldr_k_z doesn't say what the function is doing. It's just syntactic punning on a function call with two additional arguments. That's actually negative for comprehensibility. Names should be semantic, not synt
385.
by chowells 4y ago
Eh, the performance isn't from abstracting out a closure. It's from making the definition non-recursive so that it can be inlined. Then the compiler can see and inline the k and z parameters into the "go" block to elimin
386.
by chowells 4y ago
"go" is a fantastic name for communicating that all you're doing is exactly what the containing named definition promises. It's a lot better than adding "Worker" or "Impl" as a suffix of the same name
387.
by chowells 4y ago
Are you seriously equating treating people with respect with nuspeak? The post you replied to already answered your question. I'm just going to suggest that you should focus more on respecting others and less on thinking you're de
388.
by chowells 4y ago
Don't forget that most audio interfaces also let you hook up a good pair of studio monitors for output. (And there are compatible subwoofers as well, if you really want more bass.) Mine also has a headphone jack and independent analog
389.
by chowells 4y ago
If they're invisible, your text editor is doing something very wrong. They cause a fixed amount of blank space that otherwise would not be present. That is very visible.
390.
by chowells 4y ago
Why do you think people will respond rationally when they have an irrational problem?

More ›