kvb

9 ms·

61.
by kvb 12y ago
By this standard, who is innovative? Wasn't the Macintosh a reaction to the work at Xerox PARC? Wasn't the iPod a reaction to the existing MP3 players on the market? Wasn't Google a reaction to AltaVista et al.? Everyone
62.
by kvb 12y ago
Given the content, I can't tell if the allusion to the disastrous Chinese Cultural Revolution is intended or not. It seems more like Cringely's actually talking about changing Microsoft's culture, which makes the title quite
63.
by kvb 12y ago
Is there anything in the article to justify the headline, or is this just clickbait (I read the article, but it just seemed to be a groundless rant)? Are all techrights articles this low quality? (Full disclosure, I'm a Microsoft emp
64.
by kvb 12y ago
Can you expand on why you view Roundup as harmful? Without it, what methods would farmers be using instead, and would these be more environmentally friendly?
65.
by kvb 12y ago
Technically, I believe that value types with the same layout could share implementations (though I don't believe this is implemented). In any case, if you don't have generics you have to do the same thing by hand anyway (e.g. cre
66.
by kvb 12y ago
I think the blub paradox applies to everyone. Unless you spend time using a feature in earnest, it is easy to convince yourself that it's not valuable. Do you have reason to disagree?
67.
by kvb 12y ago
I'm not advocating adding every feature introduced in that span, only the ones that are not problematic. As a specific example, what's the downside to disjoint unions? They add minimal complexity while adding a ton of safety. I
68.
by kvb 12y ago
Perhaps we're talking past each other - I'm certainly not saying Go should be Haskell (I've never even written a Haskell program!). Go's designers are clearly not stupid, and many people seem quite satisfied with their
69.
by kvb 12y ago
What's problematic about .NET's approach[1]? [1] http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/akenn/generics...
70.
by kvb 12y ago
I think that's perfectly fine, though it's not my cup of tea (and I doubt that empirical evidence would show that Go's particular set of features maximizes "big project" maintainability, though such an experiment is
71.
by kvb 12y ago
It seems like Go is reasonably well designed given its creators' goals, and many people like it, which is great. But I think you're being unfair to (some) critics. It's not that Go is missing "shiny new" features
72.
by kvb 12y ago
It's very nice to be able to check annotations in a build step. I'm just saying that adding language-external checks makes it fairly meaningless to say that "C#" supports it; would it be fair to say that C# supports all
73.
by kvb 12y ago
No, not at all. It is true that units are erased at runtime, but the compile time behavior is quite sophisticated, going well beyond anything that's possible in C# or OCaml. (Your link is quite interesting, but I think that using a c
74.
by kvb 12y ago
While F# was definitely strongly influenced by OCaml, their features have diverged significantly. For example, F# has type providers, active patterns, and units of measure (though you're also right that OCaml has lots of features that
75.
by kvb 12y ago
No, you have to look at the margin. The other 99 people are already there, and you have to choose whether or not to drive; you slow down everyone after you, but you don't slow yourself down.
76.
by kvb 12y ago
It's an exciting time to be an F# programmer. The community really seems to be stepping up and getting ready to make important contributions.
77.
by kvb 12y ago
I'm curious why this is being downvoted. Isn't congestion a textbook externality?
78.
by kvb 12y ago
it's actually matter -> it actually matters expanse -> expense
79.
by kvb 12y ago
Is a building a blueprint?
80.
by kvb 12y ago
Look no further than Fiddler for an excellent Telerik product (albeit one that was acquired).
81.
by kvb 12y ago
This is an execution-centric view; I think that types really are everywhere when it comes to how typical programmers think about their code (even in dynamically typed languages).
82.
by kvb 12y ago
Depends on the industry; there are plenty of places where trade secrets aren't viable (e.g. medicinal chemistry, where it's trivial to reverse engineer a drug).
83.
by kvb 12y ago
MSR's LIQUi|> [1] looks like an interesting approach to this problem (although I'm not sure there's a publicly available way to use it). [1] http://research.microsoft.com/apps/video/default.aspx?i
84.
by kvb 12y ago
While C# isn't my favorite language, I always enjoy reading Eric Lippert's measured take on language design. He also has a particularly good sense for how to step back from a question and reframe it in an insightful way, which ma
85.
by kvb 12y ago
If you look at the Roslyn source, I'm not sure this would have worked too well. It looks like a lot of the C# is somewhat unidiomatic as it is (presumably to meet extremely aggressive performance targets), so it's not clear that
86.
by kvb 12y ago
Are you curious about using them or implementing them? What level of detail are you looking for?
87.
by kvb 12y ago
What makes it easier?
88.
by kvb 13y ago
That's a bit different; this is about user-controlled SIMD instructions, not whether .NET can use SIMD instructions as part of its routine JIT code generation (see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/davidnotario/archive&
89.
by kvb 13y ago
Thanks for the definitive reply!
90.
by kvb 13y ago
This is great to see. While Mono already had a method for using SIMD intrinsics, this tweet[1] indicates that this approach is better. Can anyone elaborate? [1] https://twitter.com/migueldeicaza/status/4520999231

More ›