mrkeen

6 ms·

61.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
I just live in the world where most things are crap. People put up pages because they want to express themselves and/or receive views or engagement. AI kills the first half, and trying to sell my attention kills the second half. I don&
62.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Not sure if this counts, but I learned Huffman coding the intuitive tree-based way. From memory it was O(nlogn), but you can just O(n) it in-place in an array.
63.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
What mechanism does CL have for reducing dangerous side-effects?
64.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Let's look at what TFA actually says: Let’s be honest: Lisp is a language designed by and for elite hackers, not for the masses. What do other people say about other languages? Python is best for novice coders, machine learn
65.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Unit testing: Well, which is it? Testing a function, a class, or a module? I didn't give my definitions of testing. I said when you go out into the OO worldview, different people will call it different things, so ignore it, it&#x27
66.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
That's wishful OO thinking. It's led to Mockito-style testing (some people call it 'unit', others call it 'integration'). You decide that the behaviour of file.read() is that it returns a string of its content
67.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Checked. The more open source software out there the better. And the more open weights or even over source AI stuff the better too right?
68.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Of course the poster has considered it, and disagrees with the message!
69.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Let them apply austerity measures then.
70.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
The answer to all these "if coding is easy" questions is that coding isn't programming (to put it in Lamport's terms). Encoding your ideas into a programming language is easy. Understanding that your ideas are bad is h
71.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
In C's defence, you only have forward-compatability of string handling to the extent that your string type will not change in the future . Byte arrays are great for this. All string encodings in the foreseeable future can be encoded
72.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
If you draw a line from 'ad-hoc byte-wrangling nonsense' to 'parser combinators', this can't be more than 20% along it. Looking at the linked URL parser, why doesn't it look like url = do scheme
73.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Yep! And since your partner will be unlikely to build a new architecture on the request of one customer, you should 'do the Kafka thing' on your end, capture everything (double-sends and all), then smartly query your events, rath
74.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
I usually preach that a big blob of mutable state in the middle of your system (the db) is the problem, and events are the solution, and this seems like its most obvious case. All your problems start when you try to modify your current stat
75.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Build MarsX and hope they can one day get over to Earth
76.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
I think you might be asking too much when it comes to correctness. It's like fixing all the problems with democracy by putting everyone in charge of their own 1-person election.
77.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Maybe give shape another try. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHiWqnTWsn4 1:00:00 - Open/closed principle and 1:13:52 - Liskov substitution principle. Both are given in terms of Shape, but it's to paint the pictur
78.
The Math Behind "Water-Efficient AI Data Centres" Is Laughably Wrong [video](youtube.com)
2 points by mrkeen 2mo ago|0 comments
79.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
Paxos is extremely hard to understand and implement. So Raft is a simple and easy-to-understand alternative to Paxos. This is one of the most uncritically parroted memes in these parts.
80.
by mrkeen 2mo ago
I'm not sure most languages get a vote here. They can't even represent Fuse's Functor example, i.e. f: A -> B, x: F[A] so maybe they don't get any points for syntax.
81.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
A programmer is someone who declares "I understand the problem so well that I can teach a computer to solve the problem, even for examples I have never seen before". If it's too hard for a programmer to reason about, I wouldn
82.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
Am I not even allowed to use https://www.oracle.com/artificial-intelligence/enterprise-ai... ?
83.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
I don't mind rebasing, so that's not really an issue. The problem I sometimes have is when I queue up 4 or 5 PRs in the afternoon and expect someone to take a look in the morning. The diff of A into master looks OK, but then the
84.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
The most widely available, useful, and best-bang-for-buck formal method is using a good type system.
85.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
> A proof of a basic todo list or something like that. Just using a verb here would be a first step toward rigorous thinking. A proof that a todo list does what?
86.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
If the author wants to take "a C program with concurrency and mutability is fine" (correctness being left to the reader), then he might as well just put a big global lock around the REPL and declare interactivity fixed too!
87.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
'Statefulness' doesn't make anything clearer. What exactly are you mutating?
88.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
This doesn't follow at all! Dropping interactivity [keep Concurrency, mutability]: The most popular choice is to drop interactivity: since there is no one to randomly access runtime data, there are no concurrency issues. C, Rust
89.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
It depends on the type system you choose to apply to LC. Simply-typed LC terminates. You have to include a construct that introduces general recursion to make it Turing complete. There's a cool practical space within those constraints
90.
by mrkeen 3mo ago
The argument is that 'the program returns' is strictly easier to prove than 'the program returns the correct answer'. If the first is impossible, then the second is too. I'm all in favour of sidestepping the argume

More ›