epgui

6 ms·

91.
by epgui 8mo ago
> Other commodity traders, more well-versed in the theory of commodity trading, scoffed at Joe’s lack of what they believed to be “essential knowledge”. But while these academic style traders (many of whom went bust) obsessed over semant
92.
by epgui 8mo ago
The author is basically ChatGPT.
93.
by epgui 8mo ago
Yeah no, that criticism of Haskell is nonsense.
94.
by epgui 8mo ago
This falls super flat for me, because the LLM that wrote this spends all of its time seemingly attacking a straw man.
95.
by epgui 8mo ago
No… The rest of the first world countries as a counter example.
96.
by epgui 9mo ago
This has nothing to do with Canada's political stability.
97.
by epgui 9mo ago
Nothing is risk-free. But Canada is certainly more politically stable than the US.
98.
by epgui 9mo ago
That “if” is doing a lot of work.
99.
by epgui 9mo ago
Is it just me (English as a second language but very fluent) or is this extremely hard to read? Does this even grammar?
100.
by epgui 9mo ago
Language is meant for using, not learning. Why is Arabic/French/Chinese/etc so difficult?
101.
by epgui 9mo ago
That’s not what I hear.
102.
by epgui 9mo ago
Bad reasoning. “Always close your tags” is a simpler rule (and fewer rules, depending how you count) than “Close your tags, except possibly in situations A, B, C…”.
103.
by epgui 9mo ago
Two words: referential transparency
104.
by epgui 9mo ago
I almost (?) always advise against “what” comments. I have rarely (if ever?) encountered any cases where “what” comments didn’t have a better (and practical/cheap/easy enough) solution. In my experience, when I review junior contr
105.
by epgui 9mo ago
This is probably one of the best use cases for "what" comments... however in my opinion a much better way to go about this is to have example-based tests (and maybe a decent function name) serve as your documentation.
106.
by epgui 9mo ago
What you describe really is describing the "why", not the "what". The line between the two is not that blurry: assume your reader has total knowledge of programming, and no knowledge whatsoever of the outside world. Co
107.
by epgui 9mo ago
Is there any advantage whatsoever to this, as opposed to a proper monad? I’m not seeing it. The point of monads is that they solve this exact category of problem in the simplest possible way.
108.
by epgui 9mo ago
How is this not a monad? It might be trying really hard not to reify the core concept of a monad, but it seems to me like it ends up being essentially a complicated monad.
109.
by epgui 9mo ago
it's not just a basic geometry problem, it's an engineering problem. You need to account for far more details.
110.
by epgui 10mo ago
The point is I don’t want my TV, my refrigerator, my toaster, my dishwasher, or my washing machine to be “smart” or to have any AI or internet connectivity. These all have a very simple job to do, and there’s absolutely zero value-add to th
111.
by epgui 10mo ago
It's a gas in an open space, it diffuses very quickly.
112.
by epgui 10mo ago
> simply statements of affirmation about how much they hate AI I wonder what that might mean!
113.
by epgui 10mo ago
You can property test most code.
114.
by epgui 10mo ago
Am I the only one who, rather than being impressed, is recoiling in horror?
115.
by epgui 10mo ago
I’m a senior engineer on a staff track, I am proud to ask “dumb” questions all the time, and I don’t want to work somewhere where I don’t feel safe pursuing knowledge openly and candidly.
116.
by epgui 10mo ago
It’s very unpleasant to read. I did find the article useful nonetheless.
117.
by epgui 10mo ago
I don’t see how this should take more than a few minutes of css work.
118.
by epgui 10mo ago
There’s a nugget of an idea in there, even if I disagree with most of it. But code doesn’t only need to be understood for maintenance purposes: code is documentation for business processes. It’s a thing that needs to be understandable and e
119.
by epgui 10mo ago
At that point you may as well just do the work yourself.
120.
by epgui 10mo ago
you could say that about anything…

More ›