kaba0

21 ms·

271.
by kaba0 2y ago
GrapheneOS is a thing.
272.
by kaba0 2y ago
Just like Brainfuck.
273.
by kaba0 2y ago
> It's pretty bad, but it turns out that exceptions and inverting my entire program to pass into a Result's flatmap chain are even worse Based on what? Exceptions do the sensible thing at all times: auto-bubbling up (no random
274.
by kaba0 2y ago
Only ergonomics, I do actually like most of it (maven central/repository model and gradle). It is one of two truly general build tools (other being Bazel), and being that generic/capable does mean that it can’t be as user friendly
275.
by kaba0 2y ago
Java’s toolchain may leave some to be desired in ergonomics, but compile time is just as fast if not faster.
276.
by kaba0 2y ago
> Go was explicitly designed for fast compile times, especially compared to C++, and I haven't heard anything to suggest that's no longer the case Well, it’s quite easy to be fast if you are just spewing out barely optimized ma
277.
by kaba0 2y ago
It’s the exact same broken system as has been known from C, it’s literally checking `errno` all the time.
278.
by kaba0 2y ago
Count the number of posts with Go in the title, vs any other programming language. It easily beats out everything both here and on lobsters.
279.
by kaba0 2y ago
How is it different than, say, java for this generalist purpose?
280.
by kaba0 2y ago
It’s semantics only. The compiler is free to optimize it in any way, e.g. if a function call gets inlined, there is nothing “returning” to begin with, it’s all just local values.
281.
by kaba0 2y ago
Google has been atrocious all across Europe ever since Covid. They used to have (maybe still do?) this local guide thingy, but this empathetic contribution doesn’t feel good for a for profit company.
282.
by kaba0 2y ago
Well, java won’t have any overhead in many cases (e.g. only single implementation), as the JIT compiler will do its job.
283.
by kaba0 2y ago
> Java has brought forth the biggest madness of tacking on OOP to everything It was C++, if we are being historically accurate. It’s actually a positive in Java’s case that it managed to make these systems even run.
284.
by kaba0 2y ago
Yay, capitalism working as intended. The rational buyer can choose to get kicked in the head or in the groin! Vote with your money! That’s why even Adam Smith himself said that it only works in well-defined markets! It’s the job of govern
285.
by kaba0 2y ago
How is it not type or null safe? It’s as safe as it can be.
286.
by kaba0 2y ago
It has nothing to do with the expression’s simplicity. There are rules uphold by the compiler, and those are displayed in the easiest example possible. There may be additional rules that could show a warning in these cases (e.g. java can tr
287.
by kaba0 2y ago
That’s not backwards compatibility, but forwards compatibility, though. And you would really have to go out of your way to introduce such an issue. Certain extreme (e.g. native calls) cases are handled by simply pinning a virtual thread t
288.
by kaba0 2y ago
It’s almost like you can’t change the default without breaking 467482 million lines of code? As they clearly write at the end, they will think of additional proposals, like making non-nullable the default on a per-class/package level.
289.
by kaba0 2y ago
> but on the other hand Java 9's module system broke just about every Java <=8 project I've ever seen That’s not true at all. Besides the package name change with jakarta, all it did is just expose a couple, popular librarie
290.
by kaba0 2y ago
But having such a naive malloc implementation would put it well below what a state-of-the-art tracing GC can do in allocation speed, and then we didn’t even get to fragmentation, elegantly solved by moving GCs. Of course, all these are trad
291.
by kaba0 2y ago
So, RC is better than tracing GC, when it’s not used as memory management, and it is special cased everywhere.. got you! Like, as I explicitly wrote, it is probably the correct choice for low-level languages close to the metal, that want ea
292.
by kaba0 2y ago
They are massively faster (as in, has better throughput) than ref counting. See my previous comment for more details.
293.
by kaba0 2y ago
> Since it's not needed and it's massively worse than reference counting Lol, what? Maybe don’t go asserting stuff you clearly know little about. Reference counting is a fine tradeoff for manual memory-managed languages, but it
294.
by kaba0 2y ago
It still can have it, see e.g. Vavr, or other functional libraries. Edit: Not sure why the downvote. This works in Java today with proper pattern matching (I left out the complete name from the permit clause, it won’t compile as is): se
295.
by kaba0 2y ago
You are not absent from conservative approximation even with manual memory management. E.g. a map is a trivial example where you can’t always know which elements will be used during the lifetime of the program (and only those has to be kept
296.
by kaba0 2y ago
Ah. But that’s also not true, you can do something like `throws T`.
297.
by kaba0 2y ago
> Java is a huge mess because it has no implicit types nor most instances of polymorphism Heh? What instance of polymorphism does it lack? Also, depending on what you mean by implicit types, Java has type inference nowadays.
298.
by kaba0 2y ago
How is running bad for our joints? Maybe if you do it on concrete in a bad shoe, but the human body was literally made to run - which is very apparent from its design (our thighs are basically a spring that can “charge up” slowly in the “up
299.
by kaba0 2y ago
I mean, no, the human heart is absolutely not “peak technology”, not even peak of what is possible in nature (birds have us beaten), but none of these hold a candle to, say, a turbine. The main issue here is the combination of biological ti
300.
by kaba0 2y ago
The heart is not necessarily the first organ to give out, the blood vessels themselves, non-dividing cells getting filled up with “junk” that won’t get cleaned up, all the space between cells do also to a degree. There never was evolutionar

More ›