lomnakkus

17 ms·

91.
by lomnakkus 8y ago
How do you get a thread's PID in Java/on the JVM? Regardless, the deprecation serves as prominent warning that the programmer is about to shoot themselves in the foot. (I'm actually more surprised that stop() hasn't been
92.
by lomnakkus 8y ago
That's 5MB compressed and also doesn't account for the fact that you'd also need an actual userspace of some description.
93.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Ah, right I wasn't aware of that. Still, AFAICT Gradle isn't nearly as 'ambitious' in tackling the hard problem of hermetic/reproducible builds as e.g. Bazel, so who knows how reliable that build cache actually is.
94.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Indeed. I think that what OCaml proved is that the "O" isn't actually necessary. :)
95.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
The models of SBT/Gradle/Maven are broken, or at least, that's the premise for writing these build tools. The model of Mill, Bazel, Buck, Pants are fundamentally different in very important ways which allow e.g. using a share
96.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
If you look at what they currently support in terms of plugin availability and stability these are nowhere near being viable alternatives at the moment. The only remotely viable alternative to SBT I've found is Pants. (I guess Maven an
97.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
> I don't think Java is a meaningful competitor. Just curious... what would you consider a meaningful competitor to Haskell? Just to lay my own cards on the table: I'd prefer Haskell to almost all other languages if we were
98.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Just a nitpick: Computers were already an integral part of daily life in 2008, and I'd argue as far back as the 80s or even 70s. It's just that the public didn't realize it.
99.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
The physics seem slightly off... :) It seems to be pretty easy to go off the top of the screen.
100.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Well, I mean it might , but it also might the case that the material is genuinely difficult and no amount of pedagogy is going to get around that. (An example might be trying to explain e.g. a non-trivial theroem from point set topology to
101.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Which is why I said "more like". Can you give examples of this "much much more" you're referring to?
102.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
The point isn't to tag the unsafe code. The point is that code NOT bearing the tag is guaranteed to be memory safe and free of race conditions. It's like having a Trusted Computing Base which is very small, verifying the hell
103.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Jenkins also semi-recently decided to go with Groovy for their "pipeline" feature. Ugh. (They may have good reasons, but anything that prolongs the lifespan of Groovy is a bad thing.)
104.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Personally, I don't like annotations, and it's related to a very specific word you used: Hidden. Annotations feel very action-at-a-distance-esque because the code that scans for them and processes them is completely separated from
105.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
> The hard part is to select which features of C++ to use and more importantly which NOT to use and to ENFORCE these rules. Maybe I've just not kept up properly, but I find it surprising that there isn't a tool which can enforc
106.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
> But C function pointers are not really emulating virtual functions. They're better and more powerful than virtual functions. "Better" is a value judgment, so I'm not sure about that, but... AFAICT they're more
107.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
If you take issue with my post, then please be specific rather than throwing a link to a big page at me. Seriously, am I somehow supposed to divine your criticism of my post from that link?
108.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
I'm really curious about > Mother Teresa as the sole artistic[...] oh, wait. What do you mean? I just don't understand if you're saying whether we should only look to (supposedly) flawless people, or... what? If it's
109.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
I skimmed it very quickly, but quite a bit of that 'defense' of Tcl seems to be assuming that the problem with "everything is a string" is performance. It isn't. There are very good reasons that stringly typed pro
110.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Indeed, and this is exactly why union types are not a replacement for algebraic data types. (Not disagreeing, just making the point more explicit.)
111.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Thank you, but that's just the "plain" phantom limb illusion. I was thinking of a completely different documentary -- the person was actually wearing a complete VR setup. (Now that I think about it, I think it might have been
112.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
I'm confused about your "greater throughput" comment. Generally one achieves maximal throughput by maximizing parallelism ( not plain concurrency!) and letting each individual core/CPU run its job to completion while ig
113.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Allow me to third that. It's one of dangers assuming that what you learned at university 15-20 years ago still applies. Another interesting talk: [0] (and even that is 5 years old) [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX
114.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
> You could certainly define the `ParitalOrd` trait for the two types to make the comparison possible I don't believe that's possible. Unless something changed relatively recently, the trait implementation has to be either a) i
115.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Given Ramachandran's Phantom Limb experiments, the "hit a fake hand with a hammer" experiment, and an experiment done by a crazy/brilliant Swede[1], I think it's very plausible that Hawking though of the synthesized
116.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
Not OP, but... Awww, I was kinda hoping there'd be ununun-ions.
117.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
> POSIX doesn't say anything about an ABI, and there's nothing holding the system as a whole to a C-based API. It's specifying C compatibility, of course it's talking about a C API! If you want a different language AP
118.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
OK, I was technically wrong about ABI. Still, the ABI is (effectively) mandated by C which is (effecitvely) mandated by POSIX. Do we still have any quarrel over wording?
119.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
(Sorry, mini-rant incoming...) Before I get all negative, I'll say that this looks very good for education[1], but I'm really curious about why the word "modern" was used. POSIX is ancient, is overspecified in very impor
120.
by lomnakkus 9y ago
It's obviously quite tricky to decide such things with complete accuracy, but -- reading Popehat's account -- it's not so much Eng's actual statements, but just the disconnectedness of thought that really leaps out. (See

More ›