pron

44 ms·

571.
by pron 11mo ago
The only lists it's topped are for likeability by users, where it was followed by Elixir and Clojure. If we go by the meaning of popularity that suggests how many people use these languages, let alone professionally, their ratings ar
572.
by pron 11mo ago
I think it is significantly harder to use than Swift, and inherently so.
573.
by pron 11mo ago
> I eventually came to the decision to stop developing in Rust, despite its popularity It's also not popular for a language that old. It's roughly as popular as Ada was when it was the same age Rust is today (there may not have
574.
by pron 11mo ago
I don't think needing to go "the extra N miles" is that special. Even if security is the only correctness concern - and in lots of cases it isn't, and (some) bugs are a very big deal - memory safety covers only a smal
575.
by pron 11mo ago
> I did not find this api to be significantly better for many use cases than writing threads and communicating over a concurrent queue. The problem with using OS threads, you run into scaling problems due to Little's law. On the JVM
576.
by pron 11mo ago
The author addresses that in a linked post: https://brooker.co.za/blog/2024/07/25/cap-again.html
577.
by pron 11mo ago
As I understand it, it's not so much that they got "hung up" on some specific capabilities for theoretical reasons, but that it's rare to find cells without these capabilities. In other words, it's nature that seeme
578.
by pron 11mo ago
Who's "we", though, and aren't virtually all of us already bystanders in that sense? I have virtually zero power to shape world events and even if I want to believe that what I do isn't entirely negligible, someone
579.
by pron 11mo ago
> My definition of intelligence is the capability to process and formalize a deterministic action from given inputs as transferable entity/medium. I don't think that's a good definition because many deterministic processes
580.
by pron 11mo ago
I agree with your conclusion but not with your premise. To do the same research it's not enough to be as capable as a human intelligence; you'd need to be as capable as all of humanity combined. Maybe Albert Einstein was smarter
581.
by pron 11mo ago
Ok, but the point of a test of this kind is to generalise its result. I.e. the whole point of an intelligence test is that we believe that a human getting a high score on such a test is more likely to do some useful things not on the test
582.
by pron 11mo ago
> this implies higher intelligence Not necessarily. The problem is that we can't precisely define intelligence (or, at least, haven't so far), and we certainly can't (yet?) measure it directly. And so what we have are cert
583.
by pron 11mo ago
If 1 ∈ 2 is neither provable nor refutable, then you're not working with anything. The proposition literally has no meaning. It's not a syntax error, but you can't use its value for anything. Its value is undefined. This actu
584.
by pron 11mo ago
I think that the aesthetic dislike of "everything is a set" is misplaced, because it misses a crucial point that people unfamiliar with formal untyped set theories often miss: Not every proposition in a logic needs to be (or, in
585.
by pron 11mo ago
> The difference with manual memory management or parallel GC is that concurrent GCs create a performance penalty on every reads and writes Not on every read and write, but it could be on every load and store of a reference (i.e. readi
586.
by pron 11mo ago
Sure, but other forms of memory management are costly, too. Even if you allocate everything from the OS upfront and then pool stuff, you still need to spend some computational work on the pool [1]. Working with bounded memory necessarily re
587.
by pron 11mo ago
Running Java workloads is very important for most CPUs these days, and both ARM and Intel consult with the Java team on new features (although Java's needs aren't much different from those of C++). But while you're right th
588.
by pron 1y ago
It's not quite as minimal as C, but it definitely could have been made in the 80s or 90s (actually, 70s, too) :) There were far larger, more complex languages back then, including low-level languages such as C++ and Ada, not to mention
589.
by pron 1y ago
> I would rather have N language features of increasing complexity/UX issues for dealing with increasingly complex situations rather than one mechanism to rule them all that can fail to instantiate in all cases (of whatever complexi
590.
by pron 1y ago
> leads to library code that needs to be actively tested for potential client use since the instantiation might fail True, like templates in C++ or macros in C or Rust. Although the code is "tested" at compile time, so at worst
591.
by pron 1y ago
I don't think it's the implementation that's delaying Zig's stabilisation, but the design. I'm also not sure comptime makes the implementation all that complicated. Lisp macros are more powerful than comptime (compt
592.
by pron 1y ago
I think that describing Zig as a "rewrite of C" (good or otherwise) is as helpful as describing Python as a rewrite of Fortran. Zig does share some things with C - the language is simple and values explicitness - but at its core i
593.
by pron 1y ago
Zig is so novel that it's hard to find any language like it. Its similarity to C is superficial. AFAIK, it is the first language ever to rely on partial evaluation so extensively. Of course, partial evaluation itself is not new at all,
594.
by pron 1y ago
I, too, wrote C++ for the 386 in the early nineties, and I, too, generally prefer it to C, but the fact remains that it has some real disadvantages compared to C. From the very early days people talked about exercising discipline and select
595.
by pron 1y ago
I think formal verification can and should be used everywhere it is helpful, which certainly includes hard realtime systems but isn't limited to them (it's helpful in quite a few areas). But formal verification is by no means the
596.
by pron 1y ago
Again, when comparing two languages you can't just look at the advantages one of them has over the other. There's no doubt C++ has many important advantages over C. The reason to prefer C in certain situations is because of C++&#x
597.
by pron 1y ago
8051s are still programmed almost entirely in C. There are C++ compilers available, but they're rarely used. Even on STM32, C is more popular. There's a perception -- and not an unsubstantiated one -- that C++'s can more easi
598.
by pron 1y ago
C is sometimes used where C++ can't be. Exotic microcontrollers and other niche computing elements sometimes only have a C compiler. Richer, more expressive languages may also have additional disadvantages, and people using simpler, le
599.
by pron 1y ago
> What are we measuring? Lines of code? Number of programmers employed? Number of new applications started? They're correlated, but number of programmers employed is something that's relatively easy to measure. > Is this low
600.
by pron 1y ago
> And the rest of those basically had no competition in their domain when they started 30+ years ago. That's not true, as anyone who was programming back then (like me) knows. Java had serious competition from VB, Delphi, and a host

More ›