pron

50 ms·

661.
by pron 1y ago
That's a matter of how policy is set. You can set it to on or off for a particular function, too. The point is that language offers sound spatial safety just as much as Rust does (and both allow you to turn it on or off in particular p
662.
by pron 1y ago
> it's simply not interesting from a safety perspective The reason memory safety is interesting in the first place (for practical, not theoretical reasons) is that it is a common cause of security vulnerabilities. But spatial memory
663.
by pron 1y ago
It is not "an eternity". A roundtrip of 100-200us - which is closer to the actual GC pause time these days (remember, I said well below 1ms) - is considered quite good and is within the 1ms order of magnitude. Getting a <<
664.
by pron 1y ago
But it does. Java already gives you direct access sto SIMD, and the last major hurdle to 100% of hardware performance with idiomatic code, flattened structs, will be closed very soon. The gap has been closing steadily, and there's no s
665.
by pron 1y ago
I don't think so. Things built in those languages may have been discussed on HN, but the amount of discussion about those languages has not been proportional at all to their popularity.
666.
by pron 1y ago
> A 1-millisecond pause is an eternity Who said anything about a 1ms pause? I said that even if virtual thread schedulers had terrible latencies (which they don't) and you added GC pauses, you'd still be well below 1ms, whi
667.
by pron 1y ago
> Modern gcs can be pauseless, but either way you’re spending CPU on gc and not servicing requests/customers. Since memory is finite and all computation uses some, every program spends CPU on memory management regardless of techniqu
668.
by pron 1y ago
First, in all benchmarks but two, Java performs just as well as C/C++/Rust, and in one of those two, Go performs as well as the low-level languages. Second, I don't know the details of that one benchmark where the low-level l
669.
by pron 1y ago
> Unfashionable languages like Java and .NET that have quality multithreaded runtimes are the way to go because they provide a single paradigm to manage both concurrency and parallelism. First, that would be Java and Go, not Java and .NE
670.
by pron 1y ago
> At the cost of not being able to actually provide the same throughput, latency, or memory usage Only memory usage is true with regards to Java in this context (.NET actually doesn't offer a shared thread abstraction; it's Jav
671.
by pron 1y ago
I don't think any language that's not well-established, let alone one that isn't stabilised yet, would have a strong selling point if what you're looking for right now is to write production code that you'll maint
672.
by pron 1y ago
Of course, but at least one of the mechanisms by which those weapons work is to increase the number of people in society with a completely broken epistemology; i.e. they want to make more people stupid, because stupid people could go along
673.
by pron 1y ago
> I don’t really know why AI can't build software (for now) Could be because programming involves: 1. Long chains of logical reasoning, and 2. Applying abstract principles in practice (in this case, "best practices" of s
674.
by pron 1y ago
They wouldn't have had better performance, though. There is no significant performance penalty we're paying, although there's a nuance here that may be worth pointing out. There are two different usecases for coroutines that
675.
by pron 1y ago
It is true that in some languages there could be difficulties due to the language's idiosyncrasies of implementation, but it's not an intrinsic difficulty. We've implemented virtual threads in the JVM, and we've used the
676.
by pron 1y ago
All synchronous code is an illusion created in software, as is the very notion of "blocking". The CPU doesn't block for IO. An OS thread is a (scheduled) "stackful coroutine" implemented in the OS that gives the i
677.
by pron 1y ago
Yes, by Godel's time the notion of "calculability" was already at least intuitively grasped, and it was then that "formal" was understood to mean mechanical. Turing made the connection rigorous. Leibniz spoke of &qu
678.
by pron 1y ago
You're talking about formal languages in the context of computer science. Formal languages in the context of logic predate computer science (or could be said to be a direct precursor to computer science). These logic languages are also
679.
by pron 1y ago
> Formal languages are basically laboratory-sized versions, or models, of natural languages. I can understand why a hundred years ago explaining what formal is (in the context of formal languages) could have been difficult. You had to
680.
by pron 1y ago
An occasional successful CAS (on an owned cache line) has very little cost, but if you have to sprinkle atomics/mutexes all over the place , then there's something that's clearly not scalable in your design regardless of the
681.
by pron 1y ago
That's fine, but a work-stealing scheduler doesn't redistribute work willy-nilly. Locally-submitted tasks are likely to remain local, and are generally stolen when stealing does pay off. If everything is more-or-less evenly distri
682.
by pron 1y ago
> we are finally getting low level software that no longer needs it We're not, though. There's a little bit of low-level software being written in Rust (and even that requires a non-trivial amount of unsafe code), but most new
683.
by pron 1y ago
> It means that it does the same JIT optimization tricks that Hotspot performs, escape analysis, devirtualization, inlining method calls, removing marshaling layers when calling into native code, PGO feedback,.... It has rather recently
684.
by pron 1y ago
I'm not sure what is meant here by "on par with the JVM." I'm not trying to claim that one or the other is better, but there is a basic difference in how they're designed and continue to evolve. .NET believes in a l
685.
by pron 1y ago
> Java's major competitors, C# and Go, both have had value types since day one Yes (well, structs; not really value types), but at a significant cost to FFI and/or GC and/or user-mode threads (due to pointers into the stac
686.
by pron 1y ago
Project Valhalla will also specialise generics for value types. When you say, "it's hard to bolt on", the challenge isn't technical, but how to do this in a way that adds minimal language complexity (i.e. less than in ot
687.
by pron 1y ago
I don't know of anyone who would like to work with someone who lies to them over and over, and will never stop. LLMs do certain things better than people, but my point is that there's nothing you can trust them to do. That&#x2
688.
by pron 1y ago
So the role of a coding agent is to challenge me to play in hard mode? And suppose getting developers to not lie or hide important information is on me, what should I do to get an LLM to not do that?
689.
by pron 1y ago
That's not the same skill at all https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45518204
690.
by pron 1y ago
Because I reached that position 15 years ago, I can tell you that this is untrue (in the sense that the experience is completely different from an LLM). Training is one thing, but training doesn't increase the productivity of the train

More ›