pron

72 ms·

781.
by pron 1y ago
What's interesting is that I wouldn't really call any of the things you list software development. With the exception of the "testing starting point", they're mostly about translating from one programming language&#
782.
by pron 1y ago
Any optimisation transforms the program in some way that has to preserve its meaning. Generally, to do that, AOT compilers need to prove that the transformation is always correct; that can be difficult for some deep optimisations. OTOH, J
783.
by pron 1y ago
LXR isn't that great when the amount of heap memory is actually reasonable rather than being unnecessarily low. Watch the ISMM talk I linked above.
784.
Keynote: Industry GC Insights from OpenJDK(youtube.com)
1 points by pron 1y ago|0 comments
785.
by pron 1y ago
ZGC
786.
by pron 1y ago
> You have to avoid abstractions and conveniences and minimizing allocations so as not to trigger the garbage collector. That's not really how modern GCs work, and not how abstractions work when you have a good JIT. The latency impa
787.
by pron 1y ago
Interesting, but possibly outdated by now. E.g. they compare against a seven-year-old version of ZGC. Back then, ZGC was not only not generational, but did some scanning during a stop-the-world pause (e.g. of stacks, but not only stacks). T
788.
by pron 1y ago
> It's the opposite, because for defer you need to be proactive and do it every time, but destructors are going to do the right thing and work No, it's the opposite, because with defer you always see all the operations that are
789.
by pron 1y ago
> Hidden functions aren't a big deal in practice. Again, that's like me saying "forgetting defer isn't a big deal in practice." You seem to disagree with that and I disagree with your assertion. It's largely
790.
by pron 1y ago
Because if there's an infinite number of laws, are they laws at all? You can't predict anything because you don't even know if some of the laws you don't know yet (which is pretty much all of them) makes an exception to
791.
by pron 1y ago
Destructors are not modern C++. When I learnt C++, circa 1993, we had destructors. Saying, you should just remember to always look up which destructors run sounds as convincing to me as how I must sound to you when I say you should just rem
792.
by pron 1y ago
> That statement is problematic. It implies a metaphysical set of laws that make physical stuff relate a certain way. What I meant was that since physics is the scientific search for the laws of nature, then if there's an infinite n
793.
by pron 1y ago
Well, the physical universe will still exist, but I don't think that physics - the scientific study of said universe - will become sort of meaningless, I would think?
794.
by pron 1y ago
Anything that runs on a computer is a formal system. "Formal" (the manipulation of forms ) is an old term for what, after Turing, we call "mechanical".
795.
by pron 1y ago
> Symbols, by definition, only represent a thing. They are not the same as the thing First of all, the point isn't about the map becoming the territory, but about whether LLMs can form a map that's similar to the map in our bra
796.
by pron 1y ago
> You can do whatever you want, but systemically it is a lot better than doing it manually and anyone experienced with modern C++ will tell you it essentially stops being a problem. Yeah, it's fine, but I think that systematically t
797.
by pron 1y ago
At work , you can trust people to either get the right answer or tell you they may not have the right answer. If someone is not trustworthy, you don't work with them again. The experience of trying to work with something that is compl
798.
by pron 1y ago
I didn't give up, I just know that I can only use a model when I have the patience to work with something I can't trust at all on anything. So that's what I do.
799.
by pron 1y ago
I thought there's no such thing as "safer". There's only whatever guarantees Rust happens to make that can prevent almost 1% of the bugs a language like ATS can prevent, which is safe, and anything that doesn't make
800.
by pron 1y ago
No, I was talking about safe Rust, which also interacts with potentially unsafe C code, you know. What do you think schedules the threads running your safe code? How do you think your safe code reads from a socket?
801.
by pron 1y ago
Can't remember, but it was something very basic - a 10/15-line routine that a first-year student would write in 3 minutes if they knew the relevant API. The reason I asked the model in the first place is because I didn't know
802.
by pron 1y ago
> Well, they do, that's why people use them. They're one of the ways of reducing , not preventing memory leaks. And they're pretty ok at that, but I find other approaches to work better for me.
803.
by pron 1y ago
The experience was that I once asked an LLM to write a simple function and it produced something very wrong that nothing with good reasoning abilities should ever do. Of course, a drunk or very tired human could have done the same mista
804.
by pron 1y ago
Sure, and that may be valuable, but it's neither "programming" nor "offloading mental effort" (at least not much). Some have compared it to working with a very junior programmer. I haven't done that in a long w
805.
by pron 1y ago
> I copy and pasted what you said. No, you didn't. You wrote "You might like making and freeing every heap allocation but that doesn't mean it's safer." That is a very different claim (and one I didn't make)
806.
by pron 1y ago
`smart pointers + destructors => no memory leaks` does not entail `no memory leaks => smart pointers + destructors`. "My solution offers X, therefore, if you want X, you should use my solution" is just a logical fallacy; the
807.
by pron 1y ago
> For me LLM:s are just a computer interface you can program using natural language. I wish they were, but they're not that yet because LLMs aren't very good at logical reasonsing. So it's more like an attempt to program
808.
by pron 1y ago
> In (safe) Rust we categorically don't have type unsafety This is very inaccurate. Simple (i.e. non-dependent) types can describe very, very few properties. 99% of correctness properties cannot be described with simple types at all
809.
by pron 1y ago
I didn't say it was safer, but by "safety" here I don't mean something that will likely work, but an absolute guarantee that it will regardless of what client code does (with the exception of clearly marked unsafe code t
810.
by pron 1y ago
> If you don't want memory leaks, it probably is what you want. No, sorry. > A lot of this seems like you haven't done a lot of modern C++ to see how elegant and smooth it is. It's true I don't want to use modern C

More ›