feanaro

166 ms·

1741.
by feanaro 9y ago
Yes, you can, but do you think that's a comparably easy thing to do? Especially when you take into account that IPFS also facilitates coordination between unrelated parties in making the caching happen.
1742.
by feanaro 9y ago
> There isn't much allure to it beyond "our hosting/CDN will be cheaper if we let the customers pay for it". This is a very business/customer-centric perspective. What about resistance to censorship, ease of shar
1743.
by feanaro 9y ago
Very interesting. I'm thrilled that there's a Web Extension API, this sounds like a killer feature. Now if only Pentadactyl/Vimperator could be reproduced on top of Web Extensions without loss of functionality... ;-)
1744.
by feanaro 9y ago
True. It still seems like an unfortunate miss of opportunity since this is essentially an UI problem. It would be great if there was an option to switch the default the other way around: all tabs are opened in their own containers unless yo
1745.
by feanaro 9y ago
Yes, I'm interested in the technical background of this supposed breakage. Having a container-per-tab is essentially the same as that tab being the only one open in the browser, from the webpage's perspective. How could that break
1746.
by feanaro 9y ago
I wonder if there is any reason each tab isn't spawned in its own container. It seems the natural thing to do once you have implemented this, since it maximizes privacy. Unless the resource usage is the limiting factor, I don't se
1747.
by feanaro 9y ago
Can you name an instance in Haskell where newtype is conceptually unnecessary but required by the language? In the sense that you may be able to derive the same set of logical guarantees that newtype gets you without using it, in principle.
1748.
by feanaro 9y ago
I think the author's goal was quite obviously to have strong sum types with compile-time safety and branch resolution. In other words, to make it impossible to use the value stored in the variant in a manner inconsistent with its type
1749.
by feanaro 9y ago
"interface", "method"... One man's obfuscatory is another man's revelatory. It heavily depends on the "axiom set" you first learned about computer science concepts on. I would contend that "inter
1750.
by feanaro 9y ago
There may be no guarantee, but that doesn't make a structure without associativity any more of a monoid, nor is having an identity element without associativity the core of idea of a monoid. If anything, associativity is the more imp
1751.
by feanaro 9y ago
llpp is (mostly) written in OCaml.
1752.
by feanaro 9y ago
I understand what you mean on most of these, but I'd appreciate some clarification on the following. > The fuzzing nature of Hypothesis means that it can do much smarter generation than a normal QuickCheck (though this is more poten
1753.
by feanaro 9y ago
> Property-based testers also often (though not necessarily) try to reduce their example (of the property not holding) to a simpler version thereof, AFAIK few if any fuzzer does that. Actually, it's pretty common. Both afl and libFu
1754.
by feanaro 9y ago
Somewhat contrary to what the other comments so far have said, I would say that this is definitely related to fuzzing. In fact, it is fuzzing, plain and simple, but unguided and of a more limited scope than what afl gets you. afl is guide
1755.
by feanaro 10y ago
> Though it is a matter of explicit over implicit too. If `name()` had a destructor you may want it to be explicitly tied to a scope by dint of being declared in one instead of floating around in a magical hidden variable that's tie
1756.
by feanaro 10y ago
That's surprising since "playful" is exactly how I would experience how I perceive Haskell. I guess it only goes to show how worthless subjective impressions usually are. In any case, I think suggesting Haskell isn't a &
1757.
by feanaro 11y ago
But the point is that they shouldn't have set the timeline until a replacement was reasonably in place. They could (and should) have said "this is going away 12 to 18 months after we've been able to determine what APIs are