fiedzia

35 ms·

361.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> if you did not provide proof for your code and I am pretty sure you do not. I am not entirely there yet, but it is where I am aiming. I may not prove total correctness, but I already am close to proving (or make very likely) absence of
362.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> It comes across as a slightly more colorful way of putting down people who use other languages as not "real" programmers This is not my intention. > In practice, most of the important code that everyone relies on to defend
363.
by fiedzia 10y ago
I didn't have much expectations, as I am doing it first time. But yes, I was hoping for a bit more hand-holding from asm utils. I've set wrong asm dialect and nothing detected that. Not the kind of friendliness I like.
364.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> Pointers are not complex, and pointer operations are not complicated. That's the understanding of simplicity I am fighting with. Yes, concept is simple. Getting it right in any non-trivial code is nearly impossible (without some f
365.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> But users almost never care about the underlying technology. I guess it heavily depends on who are you working with. If your users don't understand and don't require security, it will not be provided. My users often have cust
366.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> How am I trading those? If you choose the easiest thing for you instead of the one that provides some guarantees of quality for me, I may be the one who loses something here. > How would they care if the end result for them is the s
367.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> he's saying any software written in C is not worth using, which is patently absurd. I'm saying that choosing C guarantees a lot of problems for users. You will have such amount of bugs, that as a user, I refuse to be your bet
368.
by fiedzia 10y ago
Not advocacy per se, but undeserved bashing (and not just Rust - you may replace it anything that's non trivial for beginners). This is some response for posts saying "Rust is bad because I'cant get past compiler errors, whil
369.
by fiedzia 10y ago
Pretty much this. I should have made this clearer.
370.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> but when doing real work (which includes side project), just pick something you can get shit done with the fastest/best (some balance between those). This is where I disagree. If you do that, you are trading quality for your conv
371.
by fiedzia 10y ago
I don't have experience with it. I see a point in consistency as an important factor here though.
372.
by fiedzia 10y ago
Both hide memory management from you. Which works great until it doesn't.
373.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> This leaves me wondering how the author would classify assembly or machine code. If you want to go in this direction, I'd suggest writing 1's and 0's. Can't go wrong there :-) Btw, I actually am writing some assembl
374.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> So, maybe the real underlying point is that Rust is cool and you should use it. The point would be that Rust complexity pays off, even if it is not cool to deal with it (I do love it for that, others may not).
375.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> The problem is that for small projects you want a permissive language. For big projects you want a restrictive one. I'd say that the important factor is the cost of a bug, not project size. There are many small project that absolu
376.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> Google and other big cloud shops care a lot about energy usage actually, Indeed they do. If you have one server, or a 100, doubling that is not a problem. If you are Google, doubling your energy use requires finding new country to prov
377.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> What I don't like is the implied "only people doing stuff that I think is hard are real programmers. That's not exactly my what I want to say. My point is more like "You may not see a point in becoming a soldier and
378.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> Most mature, high level ("easy") languages are relatively bug free for most use cases. Languages and their libraries - yes. That's because they were battle-tested by users for a long time (and failed them many times). Ne
379.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> it seems bizarre to me that he lists Javascript as an example of a language that is restricted and unable to do various things. * No exceptions (practically) * no built-on ways of providing abstractions * No concurrency at all for a ve
380.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> I don't mean they should force people onto Swift. I mean that Swift, should be totally independent of ObjC If you will not provide seamless integration, you will seriously limit amount of people who migrate. There are other proble
381.
What makes programming languages easy and why you want one that isn't(fiedzia.blogspot.com)
29 points by fiedzia 10y ago|71 comments
382.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> They are a $700B company. But many of their customers aren't. Lot of them have no budget (or will) for complete rewrite. And if you force them (or just make them believe you may do it) they will complain and it means bad press, in
383.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> In hindsight, I wonder if it would have been better to just have a clean break. Language-wise - sure, it adds a lot of complexity. Platform-wise, they would risk people staying on what they had and ignoring Swift entirely, and that wou
384.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> What the hell is there to complain about, would you rather work in 50+ year old cobol? I'd rather work on modern AND stable language (I actually do, its not Swift, buy that's not my point). Broken code samples is a good reas
385.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> A simple 2d drawing API for C++ takes slowly shape > With 183 pages > This seems currently not to include text rendering. 183 pages describing "simple 2d drawing api"?
386.
by fiedzia 10y ago
>Personally I'd rather hire someone who was a "removal" specialist over someone who hadn't learned the skill yet. Oh absolutely. Problem is that gitlab didn't do that. And they will most likely have to learn many
387.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> Why don't developers unionize? They don't need to. For any combination of those goals, you can find some company that aligns with them, so just go there. It may not be google or facebook, but you have choice.
388.
by fiedzia 10y ago
If you don't have people asking you for source, most likely there is no demand, end of story. Why would anyone work repurposing untested code instead of creating what they need? Sure, people reinvent the wheel, but they know its the wh
389.
by fiedzia 10y ago
> But C++ and C developers would never switch to anything else There are many people who considered it and rejected, or even moved to other languages. C++ developers with existing large codebases may never switch to anything else, but th
390.
by fiedzia 10y ago
"being interpreted" in not enough to have useful repl. You also need to be dynamic and introspectable. There are interpreters for C, but it doesn't make it suitable to use with repl.

More ›