norir

6 ms·

31.
by norir 8mo ago
I personally would prefer to hear more about what is uniquely good about Odin semantically or syntactically than more ad hominem attacks on the intelligence of the critics of the language, which I have seen in multiple recent pieces by this
32.
by norir 8mo ago
Communism is neither the opposite of laissez-faire capitalism nor the only alternative.
33.
by norir 8mo ago
Model competition does nothing to address monopoly consolidation of compute. If you have control over compute, you can exert control over the masses. It doesn't matter how good my open source model is if I can't acquire the resour
34.
by norir 8mo ago
> I'm a programmer, and I use automatic programming. The code I generate in this way is mine. My code, my output, my production. I, and you, can be proud. I disagree. The code you wrote is a collaboration with the model you used. To
35.
by norir 8mo ago
I consider luajit a much better choice than bash if both maintainability and longterm stability are valued. It compiles from source in about 5 seconds on a seven year old laptop and only uses c99, which I expect to last basically indefinite
36.
by norir 9mo ago
A precomputed lookup table would be about 1MB covering all of then code points. The lookup code would first compute the code point (and also could do validation) and directly look up the class in the table. The lookup table would not need t
37.
by norir 9mo ago
It is depressing that our collective solution to the problem of excess boilerplate keeps moving towards auto-generation of it.
38.
by norir 9mo ago
I personally find autocomplete to be detrimental to my workflow so I disagree that it is a universal productivity improvement.
39.
by norir 9mo ago
Have you ever worried that by programming in this way, you are methodically giving Anthropic all the information it needs to copy your product? If there is any real value in what you are doing, what is to stop Anthropic or OpenAI or whomev
40.
by norir 9mo ago
Ha, I did not see your post before making mine. You are correct in your assessment of the blame. Moreover, I view optimization as an anti-pattern in general, especially for a low level language. It is better to directly write the optimal so
41.
by norir 9mo ago
To a large extent, this problem is primarily due to slow compilation. It is possible to write a direct to machine code compiler that compiles at greater than one million lines per second. That is more code than I am likely to write in my li
42.
by norir 9mo ago
Yes, this is fine for basic exploration but, in the long run, I think LLVM taketh at least as much as it giveth. The proliferation of LLVM has created the perception that writing machine code is an extremely difficult endeavor that should n
43.
by norir 9mo ago
I suspect this is wrong. If you are correct, that implies to me that LLMs are not intelligent and just are exceptionally well tuned to echo back their training data. It makes no sense to me that a superior intelligence would be unable to tr
44.
by norir 9mo ago
This is weirdly confident and defensive at the same time. If c++ is so great, why does it need to be so ardently defended and its very obvious problems handwaved away? I take a very different view about the trajectory of languages given the
45.
by norir 9mo ago
I honestly think that a 2GB limit for a code base, excluding non code assets would be perfectly reasonable. If it exceeds that it should be split into separate modules.
46.
by norir 9mo ago
This is true, whether it matters is context dependent. In an embedded program, this may be irrelevant since your program is the only thing running so there is no resource contention or need to swap. In multi-tenant, you could use arenas in
47.
by norir 10mo ago
That sounds great. We can focus on planning the obsolescence of the auto industry rather than having the industry continue to extract rents on society. Of course this will be a political nightmare, but it does seem like truly the sooner the
48.
by norir 10mo ago
I don't love a good deal of Lua's syntax, but I do think the authors had good reasons for their choices and have generally explained them. Even if you disagree, I think "without good reasons" is overly dismissive. Person
49.
by norir 10mo ago
I wince every time I see naive recursive fibonacci as a code example. It is a major turnoff because it hints at a lack of experience with tail call optimization, which I consider a must have for a serious language.
50.
by norir 10mo ago
From what I can tell chibicc, unlike tcc, is not a complete c compiler in and of itself. Looking at its source code, it relies upon external tools for both x86_64 code gen and linking: https://github.com/rui314/chibicc&
51.
by norir 10mo ago
That's a terrible benchmark but the correct thing to do is not to eliminate the code but to issue an error or warning that this is a cpu cycle burning no-op.
52.
by norir 10mo ago
Using LLVM is an indirect approach that will limit the quality of your compiler. When one looks at languages that use LLVM as a backend, there is one consistent property: slow compilation. Because of how widespread LLVM is, we often seem to
53.
by norir 10mo ago
I don't want an optimizer that eliminates an unnecessary operation. I want a compiler that tells me that it is unnecessary so I can remove it.
54.
by norir 10mo ago
For me, compiler optimization is a mixed bag. On the one hand, they can facilitate the generation of higher performance runtime artifacts, but it comes at significant cost, often I believe exceeding the value they provide. They push progra
55.
by norir 10mo ago
Master recursion and there will be nothing left to master. Avoid recursion and you will remain forever stuck in a loop.
56.
by norir 11mo ago
The prominence of LLVM is a symptom of the dying of compiler writing as an art, not evidence of its vitality.
57.
by norir 11mo ago
Parsing is strange in that many people tend to believe it is a solved problem and yet every project handles it slightly differently (and almost none do it truly well). I have been studying compiler design for several years and I have found
58.
by norir 11mo ago
Scala did async io in a very similar way over a decade ago except it was far more ergonomic, in my opinion, because the IO object was implicit. I am not convinced by either scala or zig that it is the best approach.
59.
by norir 1y ago
From my perspective, Zig is trying to do far too many things to ever reach a baseline of goodness that I consider acceptable. They are in my view quite disrespectful to their users who they force to endure churn at the whims of their dictat
60.
by norir 1y ago
I suspect much of this is a historical result of c's compilation model. Since c compilers define a compilation unit as a file, there is no good way to do incremental compilation in c without splitting the project into multiple files. I

More ›