dfranke

79 ms·

871.
by dfranke 19y ago
Sure, but then you're not working in Java any more. You're just using it as object code.
872.
by dfranke 19y ago
> the experience of using C++ is different than using C++ with knives Not by all that much.
873.
by dfranke 19y ago
I'm sharing PG's premise that languages shouldn't require such tools in order to write them effectively. Eclipse is not an excuse for Java.
874.
by dfranke 19y ago
I think if you tack on that qualification, then the statement becomes vacuous or at least near-so. Considerations in language design are dreadfully non-orthogonal to each other. I don't think you could measurably alter a language's succin
875.
by dfranke 19y ago
> This is not ridiculous. You're correct, insofar as if we assume the hypothesis of the Sweeney Todd Machine, then the above becomes a valid argument leading to a valid conclusion. However, it's an uninteresting argument because it ref
876.
by dfranke 19y ago
The only absurdity in that line of reasoning is the one that you introduced. Of course it's ridiculous that a language could cause you to spill blood when you enter a keyword. Not because we can't imagine a machine that worked in such a w
877.
by dfranke 19y ago
What? Why would I want to introduce more differences? That the languages are so similar is the strength of the argument. Identical concision, different power, QED.
878.
by dfranke 19y ago
You don't need additional nodes. The syntax of Arc' is still context-free. Paren types can be checked on-the-fly during parsing and never have to enter the AST.
879.
by dfranke 19y ago
Kolmogorov complexity is with respect to a given description language, so that begs the question somewhat.
880.
by dfranke 19y ago
> succinctness is brevity and clarity Which is it? Those are two very different things. > extraneous bracketing reduces clarity I'd argue that clarity is increased. It makes it easier to tell what open paren matches what closing p
881.
A hypothetical counterexample to "succinctness is power"
18 points by dfranke 19y ago|59 comments
882.
by dfranke 19y ago
Yes. I know more hackers who own cats than own dogs. However, I'm acquainted with ESR and we have acquaintances in common, so I'm not really an independent data point.
883.
Cats domesticated humans(washingtonpost.com)
4 points by dfranke 19y ago|3 comments
884.
by dfranke 19y ago
How about this: make news.yc look right in Dillo ( http://www.dillo.org ).
885.
by dfranke 19y ago
My hope is !Microsoft.
886.
by dfranke 19y ago
I once attended a lecture in which the lecturer proved that this game is isomorphic to 1-column Nim.
887.
As long as we're posting our chess-variants, here's mine
6 points by dfranke 19y ago|3 comments
888.
by dfranke 19y ago
For the most part that's by design. After further consideration, though, I have to add the caveat that this system only makes sense in first-world economies. It doesn't make much sense to put a subsistence farmer in the second-highest of
889.
by dfranke 19y ago
The problem with the lower, middle, upper hierarchy is that it doesn't correspond to anything meaningful about one's lifestyle, or at least hasn't since it still meant serf, merchant, and nobility. How about a more meaningful set of labels
890.
by dfranke 19y ago
I think you're wrong. Although both humans and AIs are essentially doing a tree search, the methodology is sufficiently different that the resemblance becomes superficial. An AI's heuristic for evaluating a position is fast and crude, somet
891.
by dfranke 19y ago
The way that an AI plays chess is nothing at all like the way a human plays chess. I don't think chess being cracked by AI has any bearing on chess's ability to measure human intelligence.
892.
by dfranke 19y ago
Knuth has a pretty good treatment of tries in volume 3.
893.
by dfranke 19y ago
LOC is a terrible measure of productivity, but as a long-term measure of work it's not so bad.
894.
by dfranke 19y ago
Why do so many people rag on that movie? Are they expecting it to be some kind of epic manifesto of open source culture, and then getting let down? It's just entertainment with a few extra morsels for hackers. When you look at it that wa
895.
by dfranke 19y ago
Hi endecotp. I'm glad to see your candor about the level of security offered and I hope that my original comment didn't come across more harshly than I meant it. I was speaking solely for myself: I am not the market for this because I'd r
896.
by dfranke 19y ago
Nonsense. I started learning QBASIC when I was 5 and was competent by 6. That's not a fluke; one of my elementary school classmates in a class of 40 started just as early, and in fourth grade a second friend easily picked up Visual Basic
897.
by dfranke 19y ago
This might be useful in the mode where you can deploy it on your own server, but I'm not touching their my.anyterm service. Why should I consider them more trustworthy than Hushmail?
898.
by dfranke 19y ago
It's amazing how many otherwise intelligent people are unable to control their LOL reflex even after the online equivalent of shock therapy.
899.
by dfranke 19y ago
As I commented below, the source is unreadable, but I don't think it's using minimax. The algorithm simply seems to be don't leave pieces undefended and try to attack opponent's pieces. It didn't see my mate-in-two where the first move wa
900.
by dfranke 19y ago
They obfuscate the source with one-letter variable names and no indentation to keep the size down, which is pretty silly. It wouldn't be any less impressive if it were 10k and readable.

More ›