klodolph

31 ms·

541.
by klodolph 2y ago
I’m using Nix for development and generally I agree. The first catch is that I want to be able to update my system on a regular basis, and keep using exactly the same dependencies in my project after an update. Maybe I’m in the middle of wo
542.
by klodolph 2y ago
IIRC the underlying implementation may be different on other systems. I think in particular, DNS resolution. Linux is the only system where static linking all the way really makes any sense. For most systems, you don’t get a stable syscall
543.
by klodolph 2y ago
> No such file or directory Anyone who’s run into this problem remembers it! (This isn’t a Nix problem—this is just the baffling errors you get because a.out exists, but one of the libraries it needs does not, and the error message doesn
544.
by klodolph 2y ago
Back in the day, you used the Resource Manager to open a resource fork. The resource manager provides functions to load individual resources, query which resources exist, and add or modify existing resources. The Resource Manager made it to
545.
by klodolph 2y ago
> So, whatever the on-disk structure, the motivation here is that from an OS API perspective, There are multiple layers to the OS API. There is the Resource Manager, which provides the structured view. Underneath it is the File Manager
546.
by klodolph 2y ago
I’m fine with the occasional .DS_Store getting added, because you can just remove it afterwards. Most of my work is either my own projects or at work, and whether people at work commit .DS_Store files is a question that touches on code revi
547.
by klodolph 2y ago
Arrow keys are where it’s at. Command up to go up one level, command down to go down one level (open). Always felt like I had to move my hands more on Windows.
548.
by klodolph 2y ago
Enough to teach people to use a global git core.excludesfile, IMO. Same place you should put rules for Emacs / Vim swap files.
549.
by klodolph 2y ago
> One metadata and one the file contents. I’d say this is not the right way to describe a resource fork. Instead, think of it as two sets of file contents—one called "data" and one called "rsrc". On-disk, they are bot
550.
by klodolph 2y ago
This is a good question, but it took me a few tries to write a satisfactory answer. A hermetic build is one where the environment can change but the build outputs stay the same. This lets you aggressively and pervasively use remote caches,
551.
by klodolph 2y ago
> There's no references to c dependencies anywhere in what gazelle produced. I could have hand-written those changes just as easily, without gazelle. I get that this scenario is confusing but this is incorrect. The problem is that y
552.
by klodolph 2y ago
You’re making a complaint about Gazelle. If you import third-party packages with c dependencies with Gazelle, obviously, the two choices are it breaks hermeticity or you vendor the C code. Bazel does ignore those comments. Gazelle does not.
553.
by klodolph 2y ago
> If an organization isn't big enough to vendor every single tool dependency, shared library, etc (which basically requires building out an OS distribution in Bazel), what's the right way to approach this problem? Here are some
554.
by klodolph 2y ago
> If we can agree living at HEAD is preferred having a communal vendored third_party seems like a clear win. “It has been 0 days since a minor version update in a third-party library has broken my code.” This is just a fiendishly difficu
555.
by klodolph 2y ago
> If bazel allows impurely using that dependency from the host, like bazel allows for python, then you'll be able to run into similar issues. That’s not how Bazel + CGO works at all . It sounds like you are making some guesses here
556.
by klodolph 2y ago
I would go for something like “orientation”. Or “rotation”. Ordinary English words that represent what are, more or less, ordinary, familiar concepts. The fact that it’s a “quaternion” or a “rotor” is kind of an implementation detail. Of th
557.
by klodolph 2y ago
In 3D space, rotors are quaternions with different labels. If rotors are better, then the only conclusion we can draw is that people don’t like the name “quaternion”.
558.
by klodolph 2y ago
I know it’s a rhetorical question—but I’m sure that someone discovered animal glues because they were cooking, left the animal products to cook in water, and then let it dry out. You cook it because it’s supposed to be food, but sometimes y
559.
by klodolph 2y ago
> as long as you prove that yours is equivalent to everyone else's it's fine That’s exactly the point I was making in the first place. “Unsatisfactory” just means “unsatisfactory” in the sense that some mathematicians out there
560.
by klodolph 2y ago
You can work with infinitely many such sets at a time.
561.
by klodolph 2y ago
What do you disagree with? Traditionally, you define ℚ as equivalence classes of pairs of integers. The integer 0 is an integer, it’s not an “equivalence class of pairs of integers” and therefore it’s not a rational, in the set-theoretic se
562.
by klodolph 2y ago
There is a different answer here which is more satisfactory… which is to use notions of equality other than set theoretic equality. Which is what the article is talking about.
563.
by klodolph 2y ago
By definition, analogies are between things that aren’t the “same thing”.
564.
by klodolph 2y ago
Yes, the empty set is a subset of all sets. I think some wires got crossed somewhere because whether zero is a subset of some other set doesn’t fit into the questions we are trying to answer. You could pick a construction where the natural
565.
by klodolph 2y ago
There’s a very deep problem with that—every time you invent a “superset”, do you then have to redefine the subset to be a subset of that “superset”? There is an infinite chain of supersets of the rational numbers, real numbers, etc. Think o
566.
by klodolph 2y ago
How about this example: the natural number 0 is not a member of the integers, from a set theoretic perspective. In the natural numbers, 0 = {} However, {} is not an element of the integers. This is not something I expect to be easy t
567.
by klodolph 2y ago
I think you may have not gotten far enough to get a formal explanation of what 0 and 1 are. The definition taught to most mathematicians is that for the natural numbers, 0 = {} 1 = {{}} In general S(N) = N ∪ {N} But this is
568.
by klodolph 2y ago
Wikipedia has a lot of resources. Naturally, it won’t all be accessible (some of these constructions sit at the top of a mountain, and you have to climb the mountain first). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construction_
569.
by klodolph 2y ago
You have to use a very funny notion of ⊂ for that to make sense. Mathematicians recognize that there is a lot of funny business going on behind the scenes… if you use the typical construction of these sets, then ℤ ⊂ ℚ is for sure false un
570.
by klodolph 2y ago
The incompleteness theorem isn’t an argument against formalism, it’s just a bound on what you can do with it (you can’t use one set of axioms and expect to prove everything). That’s ok, because you are, 1. Not required to prove everything w

More ›