dathinab

56 ms·

661.
by dathinab 1y ago
you can easily verify a lot like: - correct syntax - passes lints - type checking passes - fast test suite passes - full test suite passes and every time it doesn't you feed it back into the LLM, automatically, in a loop, without your
662.
by dathinab 1y ago
a lot of applications auto convert -- to an em dash and a bunch of phone/tablet keyboards do so, too I like em dashes I had considered installing a plugin to reliably turn -- into em dash in the past, if I hadn't discarded that id
663.
by dathinab 1y ago
this is so absurd authoritarian the core of free speech isn't if you can insult officers or similar in the larger picture irrelevant things, but the freedom of teaching, education, books etc. And freedom doesn't just means "i
664.
by dathinab 1y ago
also to be realistic in a lot of practical situations I/O buffers are reused so at least for the I/O buffer use-case it can be very viable (perf wise, in most use cases) to just zero or rand initialize it once on alloc and then tr
665.
by dathinab 1y ago
> there were some wild architectures out there. what is out there is still pretty wield just slightly less > probably nothing significant on modern out-of-order machines. having no UB at all will kill a lot of optimizations still rel
666.
by dathinab 1y ago
only until you get deeper into how the hardware actually work (and OS to some degree) and realize sometimes the UB is even in the hardware registers and that the same logical memory address might have 5 different values in hardware at the s
667.
by dathinab 1y ago
> same uninitialized value, that can limit code generation options it pretty much requires the compiler to initialize all values when they first "appear" except that this is impossible and outright hazardous if pointers are inv
668.
by dathinab 1y ago
> why primitive types aren't "frozen" by default. it kills _a lot_ of optimizations leading to problematic perf. degredation TL;DR: always freezing I/O buffers => yes no issues (in general); freezing all primitive
669.
by dathinab 1y ago
> It seems like a much easier thing to do. They drive on fixed routes and do not have to handle complicated parking situations. - transporting people has higher legal requirements - "complicated parking situations" is IMHO not
670.
by dathinab 1y ago
my guess is a bit of both 1. due to Brexit but I think also other reasons they had face planted their economy so hard that its very normal to some some "fast growth" after fixing some of the problems 2. there had been a lot of int
671.
by dathinab 1y ago
Are you sure? From the major EU cities I have visited at least 2 which have many "hills that are unmanageable on a town or cargo bike" (Zürich & Lisbon). And if we include smaller places its many many more places. Now what &qu
672.
by dathinab 1y ago
yes but also no convergent evolution is a thing, even pretty common (e.g. see crap like animals) and while very rare and unlikely different species can "merge" especially if we speak about relatively simple live form through the m
673.
by dathinab 1y ago
Ignoring that it might be related to stations where idk. most people can't have children (or they at lest won't survive). The other options is that there can be while groups of humans in a distant place alive at the same time, but
674.
by dathinab 1y ago
the issue is loading and setting env (which is the default for dot env libraries) _is fundamentally unsound thanks to unix/posix_ no way around that hence why set env wasn't marked as unsafe _even through it not being fully save b
675.
by dathinab 1y ago
after testing that that very small fixed functionality you provide is correct non small "completed" well tested libraries being flagged as security issues due to being unmaintained seem to be starting to become an issue
676.
by dathinab 1y ago
they are also Google .. as in they can afford to rewrite everything .. can afford to suffer from not invented here syndrome .. and are under _massive_ threat of people doing supply chain attacks compared to most other projects (as they end
677.
by dathinab 1y ago
the problem is if you put library dependencies in their own sandbox you have a different kind of interface (much more limited) for libraries like e.g. if we look at sandbox boundaries we have: - some in language permission enforcement (e.g.
678.
by dathinab 1y ago
> isn't much momentum yet to change the status quo. it's complex problem with tons of partial solutions which each have tons of ways to implement them with often their no being a clear winner i.e. it's the kind of hard to
679.
by dathinab 1y ago
> not possible to depend on only a part of a module in Rust though right yesn't, you can use feature flags similar to `#if` in C but it's also not really a needed feature as dead code elimination will prune out all code functi
680.
by dathinab 1y ago
to extend on this: in rust crates are semantically one compilation unit (where in C oversimplified it's a .h/.c pair, and practically rustc will try to split it in some more units to speed up build time). the reason I'm point
681.
by dathinab 1y ago
yes, it's not a issue of code size but a issue of supply chain security/reviewability it's also not always a fair comparison, if you include tokio in LOC counting then you surely would also include V8 LOC when counting for no
682.
by dathinab 1y ago
dead code elimination is a very old shoe which get reinvented all the time, like in dotnet with "trimming" or in JS with "tree-shaking". C/C++ compiler have been doing that since before dot net was a thing, same for
683.
by dathinab 1y ago
TL;DR: depending on your use case and defintion of "safe" in most general prupose cases they can be assumed to be "in general" as safe as the other. For the sandbox it's hard to say, lets just say for most considera
684.
by dathinab 1y ago
> What's the desired outcome? European, NATO, or Ukrainian security guarantees? that would be pretty dump to try, I don't think there are any such goles > To placate or appeal to the current American leadership? only we spea
685.
by dathinab 1y ago
I think Catholicism has much bigger problems in the US then evangelicals gaining tracking. Like people which by the Wikipedia definition of fascist being fascist using Catholicism as a tool to push their believes which are not at all compat
686.
by dathinab 1y ago
1. complete type checking in python eco system you have linters like ruff which do hardly any type checking and type checkers like mypy which do try to approach complete type checking, but still are absurdly full of holes 2. speed any of th
687.
by dathinab 1y ago
not specific to just your answer but why do people mention ruff? Ruff is a linter which (intentionally) does close to no type checking. So you pretty much have to pair it up with a type check to get any even just half way decent static code
688.
by dathinab 1y ago
To extend on this: In python it's pretty common to have LSP separate from type checking separate from linting (e.g. ruff+mypy+ide_specific_lsp). Which to be fair sucks (as it limits what the LSP can do, can lead to confusing mismatches
689.
by dathinab 1y ago
the thing is most (all) of the type checkers including e.g. mypy _do not_ support most crazy python ... not because they don't want to or because it's to slow but because it's not really viable without fully executing module
690.
by dathinab 1y ago
through algorithmic improvements can also go a long way and if you are one of the first type checker which have to figure out the mess the python type annotation system is you will vast a lot of time on figuring that out instead of refactor

More ›