laumars

64 ms·

631.
by laumars 5y ago
> So are you deprecating the term "Turing Complete"? No. It’s still an interesting yard stick. It just doesn’t describe programming languages in full. For example, and someone counterintuitively, it is actually possible to de
632.
by laumars 5y ago
> I do scan alternative shells from time to time. I could have missed but I didn't see multiple dispatch in any of them. Which ones have it? Just to clarify: In which shell you can define several methods with the same name and when
633.
by laumars 5y ago
I don’t think it makes much sense to judge software by whether it is Turing complete because otherwise that would make Minecraft a programming language
634.
by laumars 5y ago
> NGS is programming-language-first while other modern shells are typically shell-first. Not always no. Even if your point were true, being programmer-first is not always a desirable feature. The vast majority of shell work is basic an
635.
by laumars 5y ago
There’s a few of these types of shells floating about these days. I personally use murex but Elvish seems popular too.
636.
by laumars 5y ago
If your hot path needs that level of micro-optimisation then you’re far better off rewriting it an language that compiles instead of interprets and forks. Even Ruby and Perl would run circles around Bash.
637.
by laumars 5y ago
> Bash is not a "real" programming language, so do not treat it as one. Bash is definitely a different paradigm to your average imperative or functional language and thus requires a different approach but I wouldn’t go so far
638.
by laumars 5y ago
You could s/play video games/ with a whole plethora of morally objectionable strings but that doesn’t make it equivalent to playing computer games.
639.
by laumars 5y ago
People construct avatars and profiles about who that want to be in a world they want to be in. Nobody wants a 1:1 with actual reality because we already live in it. It’s the same reason we watch super hero movies, read comic books and novel
640.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s why I said “for those who don’t have the space”. You might live in a one bed apartment and not have the room for a dedicated work space so VR might be the alternative in such a situation. I appreciate this isn’t going to be a super c
641.
by laumars 5y ago
I do think the potential around VR is greatly oversold however there are still benefits outside of gaming: concerts, remote conferences, having kick ass multi-screen home office for those who don’t have the space for one.
642.
by laumars 5y ago
The point the OP is making is VR isn’t a domain where you test drive practical family cars. Sure you have racing games but how many people can afford, let alone justify, high ended performance cars for their family? And how many racing game
643.
by laumars 5y ago
> what I've been saying for years: cloud is great for scaling down, but not that great for scaling up. Yes and no. The cloud isn’t cheap at running any lift and shift type project. Where the cloud comes into its own is serverless
644.
by laumars 5y ago
In addition to that, I’d wager few people have long bouts of thinking code faster than they can type it. The act of typing is usually the easiest part of the whole process.
645.
by laumars 5y ago
I’d say the opposite is true. These days studio quality equipment is affordable so often when you pay for studio time what you’re paying for is more the producers talent. So it really depends on the style of music and how prepared you are g
646.
by laumars 5y ago
It does when you tersely react to other people’s comments stating they should follow “standards” (which you now finally agree are not a standard). If your comment wasn’t so rude from the outset then I wouldn’t have nitpicked your statement.
647.
by laumars 5y ago
> There is no such thing as a "recognised standards authority". Yes there is > Who would be the root standards authority to appoint other standards authorities? You’re thinking of signing authorities. > And why can&#
648.
by laumars 5y ago
You’ve missed the point. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a specification not an agreed convention. I’m saying the GP shouldn’t get so argumentative about Reproducible Builds being a standard when it’s just a specification.
649.
by laumars 5y ago
> Of course not, and no one has claimed that this is a globally recognized standard. > > Reproducible Builds has standardized "SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" for exactly this usecase. > It's important to get semantics ri
650.
by laumars 5y ago
But that doesn’t still make the specification “standardised” for anyone else. I hate arguing semantics because it’s usually a worthless argument. But the problem here is people are specifically arguing that Reproducible Builds have standard
651.
by laumars 5y ago
No, that makes it a common implementation or even a de facto standard. It does not make it standardised because Reproducible Builds is not a recognised standards authority.
652.
by laumars 5y ago
I actually did and the link just references a specification, not a standard. Something being “standardised” requires more than just a specification and just because the specification throws the term “standard” around it doesn’t mean it has
653.
by laumars 5y ago
That’s a specification. Just because the specification says it’s standardised it doesn’t mean it is. Where’s the corresponding approval from ISO, ANSI or other standards authority? There’s nothing wrong with a specification or even a refere
654.
by laumars 5y ago
It’s a proposed convention. A specification. But it’s not a standard.
655.
by laumars 5y ago
> The x86 alternative os to MS-DOS such as Digital Research GEM was also written in C and assembly. Minor nitpick from what you’ve posted above (I’m sure you know this and perhaps had a brain fart when you posted): GEM was DRs GUI so a
656.
by laumars 5y ago
OS/2 and NT weren’t really seen on home systems. I’m sure Pascal was much more widespread than your post suggests though. I’m sure I read somewhere that early Windows (as well as Lisa) was written in Pascal. And I do remember Pascal co
657.
by laumars 5y ago
Rust isn’t even the only mature systems language that offers memory safety. In this thread people have thrown Haskell and Perl as examples of languages not suitable for writing a kernel and while they’re right it’s still a straw man argumen
658.
by laumars 5y ago
> Not sure what you mean there ("dominant"?) but in the 1980s, BASIC was the dominant language on home computers because that's what they included. That was late 70s / early 80s and the firmware was all assembly wit
659.
by laumars 5y ago
I never understood how C took over the desktop space as well. Pascal was a way better language and already dominant for home computing back in the 80s. Then by the 90s everywhere was C and C++. I never quite understood how or why that happe
660.
by laumars 5y ago
> Rust with its safety guarantees has those benefits in a way no other language does. Lol no. There’s plenty of languages that are equal to or even more safe than Rust. Many of which are also more mature than Rust too. This meme of “On

More ›