gruseom

58 ms·

541.
by gruseom 13y ago
I have a naive question. If the court found NSA surveillance unconstitutional, why didn't it stop? Was the opinion overturned, or did the program change in response to it?
542.
by gruseom 13y ago
no repeated automated queries Can you define "repeated automated query"? Since an API is for automated queries by definition, this is confusing.
543.
by gruseom 13y ago
When I posted, there was no thread to speak of. Now that I've seen it, I can't disagree.
544.
How Many Cups of Coffee Per Day Are Too Many?(npr.org)
2 points by gruseom 13y ago|0 comments
545.
by gruseom 13y ago
How much of this is "News" in general, and how much is the Guardian in particular? They seem to be way further out on this than any other publication. The fact that their corporate structure is so unusual is part of why their role
546.
by gruseom 13y ago
It's very related! From the HN guidelines: On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies
547.
The Dynamo and Big Data(krugman.blogs.nytimes.com)
2 points by gruseom 13y ago|0 comments
548.
by gruseom 13y ago
Sorry to reply twice, but I remembered something about this: a function should do one thing, and only one thing. I'm sure we all agree that functions should be well-defined. However, this is curiously separate from the question of ho
549.
by gruseom 13y ago
Methodologies. Languages. Practices. Tools. I did say "specifically" :)
550.
by gruseom 13y ago
It's just a paraphrase of the Dijsktra quote. The same idea is implicit in the distinction between lexical and dynamic scope, which confused me for years before I got it... probably because "dynamic scope" is something of an
551.
by gruseom 13y ago
Thanks! I get it now. Good explanation.
552.
by gruseom 13y ago
It's just wrong. This is the wrong thread to kick up a fuss about this. If these guys are using "OS" the same way that Ubuntu and Debian do, that's just fine for a new project. It also means that your complaint has not
553.
by gruseom 13y ago
the downside of stateless portscanning is that you are trading speed for false negatives That's interesting. Could you explain this in a bit more detail? Unless I missed it, the thread from yesterday didn't discuss this.
554.
by gruseom 13y ago
That line is by Alan Perlis [1]. It's great, but not relevant to the question above, which is: all other things being equal, what's the best way to do functional decomposition? If you're moving between 1 and 10 data structure
555.
by gruseom 13y ago
I think tlrobinson's point is that number-of-tokens renders a trivial objection to measuring code size such as "what if we rewrite everything to have one-letter variables" irrelevant, since that doesn't change the number
556.
by gruseom 13y ago
We're not talking about distance from the CPU. At least I'm not, and I'd be shocked if Dijkstra were. No, the issue is that a program has at least two different logical structures: its lexical organization in text, and its dy
557.
by gruseom 13y ago
I'd be wary about relying on, what is, frankly outdated assumptions. You'd be wary, and so you'd replace these studies with what exactly? Which of their assumptions are outdated? Let's not fall into the trap of thinkin
558.
by gruseom 13y ago
Thanks! Your comment and my edit must have been posted concurrently.
559.
by gruseom 13y ago
This looks like a wonderful thing. But I can't see any animations! What am I missing? Edit: ah, only the color diagrams are animated. The top of the page links to a blurb about that.
560.
by gruseom 13y ago
Without going into too much detail Please do go into detail. What is some of this "quite a lot" of knowledge that sheds light on the questions at hand? It would be great to have new references. "code size" is an awful
561.
by gruseom 13y ago
I thought of that Dijsktra quote too. It sheds light on what's wrong with the OP's proposal: in return for less nesting, it worsens the conceptual gap between the program (in text) and the process (in time). A poor trade. I'v
562.
by gruseom 13y ago
How many functions are good? If I add a dozen, is that better? Short methods are good—have any evidence for that? I don't think you do, because such evidence as there is points in the opposite direction (look it up in Code Complete ).
563.
by gruseom 13y ago
The examples are 40% and 20% longer. That is significant. The trouble with small examples is that their problems don't seem like a big deal because their entire codebase isn't a big deal. You have to apply them many times over to
564.
by gruseom 13y ago
I am wary of designs that make code significantly longer, as both these examples do. The improvement in local readability is often superficial and the cost in overall readability (not to mention bugs, which increase with code size) is often
565.
by gruseom 13y ago
Great comment! I missed that.
566.
by gruseom 13y ago
So basically each gif covers one discrete step of whatever process you're documenting? That would work. I don't want a dozen animations all going at it at once on a page, though.
567.
by gruseom 13y ago
Those are good points. I suppose the counterargument is that it depends on how much the contexts intersect. It seems to me that in this case the contexts intersect rather a lot. But if I'm wrong, and overloaded project names don't
568.
by gruseom 13y ago
You've evaded the GP's comment, which is about the name "Arc"'s rather obvious existing binding. Why? I'm curious to hear by what process you've decided to ignore that.
569.
by gruseom 13y ago
It would be lucky for me if you were right, because there's a name I've fallen in love with and want to use for an open-source project that is roughly as semantically distant from an existing project as "Arc the language&quot
570.
by gruseom 13y ago
But "Arc" as a name is widely known and used, at least among the HN sort of community, and although it's a niche language it's actively used within that niche. I think you're overstating things; the name "Arc&q

More ›