mattwilsonn888

5 ms·

1.
by mattwilsonn888 9mo ago
If you have to work in a language or framework with a lot of arbitrary-seeming features, ugly or opaque translation layers, or a lot of boiler-plate, then I absolutely understand the sentiment. Programming a system at a low-level from scrat
2.
by mattwilsonn888 10mo ago
Why not? The individual grunt knows it is more productive and the managers tolerate a non-zero amount of risk with incompetent or disgruntled workers anyways. If you have clean access privileges then the productivity gain is worth the risk,
3.
by mattwilsonn888 10mo ago
Except, and you would know this if you skimmed the article, this headline query is being used sardonically.
4.
by mattwilsonn888 11mo ago
The issue with this model in the most general sense is that it is zero-sum, and at the limit it doesn't provide hardly any security. I delay the use of updated software by a week, and anyone that doesn't takes the risk. Therefore
5.
If Odin Had Macros(gingerbill.org)
40 points by mattwilsonn888 1y ago|28 comments
6.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
As if you can make that judgement for others. Don't do this next time.
7.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Do I have to put the pieces together for you? What is the relevant skill in programming? Problem solving. It's not aim or timing or hand-eye coordination lmao.
8.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
It's called simplicity. Not every single semantic element in the language needs to be a type. `for i in 0..<10` This isn't "magic," it's a loop that initializes a value `i` and checks against it. It's a lot
9.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Because a primary function of the chair is the same to programming languages: ergonomics. That is obviously true, otherwise we'd code in assembly and type in UTF-8 byte codes.
10.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Implying that correctness necessitates a lack of ergonomics is deeply flawed. The distinction between correctness and safety is that safety is willing to suffer false positives, in pursuit of correctness. Correctness is just correctness.
11.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Your earlier point that languages exist that are safer than Rust but not less ergonomic is irrelevant - that's the point I made. One can fail, or artificially make a language less ergonomic and that doesn't mean that fixing that s
12.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Well it is arguably Rust's worst issue and it has remained it for most of its life. Are you really going to try and convince people that this is completely incidental and not a result of pursuing its robust static contracts? How pedant
13.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Let me be more clear: the cognitive overhead is real, and does go away with less constraining languages. If that doesn't disagree with your previous point then I misread it. And I was making a point even more general than prototyping,
14.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
I don't use Zig, but I can answer your questions: Because Zig is a better language across the board. And that includes safety. You can have a language that doesn't do heavy static-analysis like Rust which still makes safety a lot
15.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
To contradict you: avoiding false positives (programmer is correct, compilation fails anyways) by refactoring code into the second or third best design, is exactly the type of cognitive overhead that deserves to be vindicated when complaine
16.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
I would be interested to read the debates that stems from this point.
17.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
I think you are clearly good-faith. The issue is the underlying and unfair assumption that is so common in these debates: that the memory-unsafe language we're comparing against Rust is always C/C++, rather than a modern approach
18.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
*Under the assumption that you are maximizing both. I often hear complaints that Rust's semantics actually haven't maximized ergonomics, even factoring in the added difficulty it faces in pursuit of safety. It's totally possi
19.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
This is incredibly misleading (technically true maybe) and you know it. Rust has slower compile times for the sake of safety, it's a tradeoff you shouldn't be ashamed of. I didn't narrowly claim the borrow checker (as opposed
20.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Try and appreciate the humor in what you're replying to without fully discounting the point of it.
21.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
We're talking about Zig not C. Same argument will apply to Odin. These modern approaches are not languages that result in constant memory-safety issues like you imply.
22.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
This is true for every language. Logic bugs exist. I'll take good OS process isolation over 'written-in-Rust' though I wouldn't mind both. That being said, you've missed the point if you can't understand that s
23.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
It's an amazing piece of marketing to corner anyone who dislikes a certain hassle as being mentally deficient - that's what "skill issue" means in this context.
24.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
No. It is not an invisible safeguard - it yaps and significantly increases compile time and (a matter of great debate) development effort. It is a helmet, just accept it. Helmets are useful.
25.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
As long as the audience accepts the framing that ergonomics doesn't matter because it can't be quantified, the hand-waving exemplified above will confound. "This chair is guaranteed not to collapse out from under you. It migh
26.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
"Performing something like this is definitely expensive" That is false. A 51% attack is only expensive to the degree to which the hashpower required to exceed 50% is obtained at negative margins. If an attacker can collect the tot
27.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
It's not that people shouldn't have a minimum standard of living, it's whether we are going to take easy and ineffective routes to solve the problem that look good on paper and in commercials or whether we can have the adult
28.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
Why is 90% for each step such an insurmountable probability? Maybe it's completely unreasonable for you to assume the causation for each step isn't on the order of 99%. Your argument is too abstract to be a relevant rebuttal.
29.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
You're completely off base on the focal length argument. A traditional camera has the choice and can choose the most appropriate length; an Iphone is locked in to a fish-eye clearly put in there to overcome its inherent limitations.
30.
by mattwilsonn888 1y ago
I'm not going to argue you or anyone should find the value aforementioned. But I think the "it's been 15 years" argument is hollow. Clearly Bitcoin has an every-growing community of dedicated holders, and Bitcoin has sur

More ›