quatrevingts

6 ms·

1.
by quatrevingts 3y ago
As the article notes, that's because CPUs are designed to run existing C code fast. You could create an instruction set that provided this control, but it might be a tough sell in a world full of C code.
2.
by quatrevingts 4y ago
I think the contradictions are pretty clear: it raises prices, but holdouts sell cheap; it's a shit neighborhood that no one wants to live in because it's too crowded... And the hypothetical boxed-in holdout scenario is simply not
3.
by quatrevingts 4y ago
YIMBYism simultaneously raises prices (presumably for the greedy developers and sellouts) and lowers them (for the noble neighborhood defenders who are forced to sell). Got it.
4.
by quatrevingts 5y ago
As a layout and rendering toolkit, the modern web browser is just head and shoulders above everything else in terms of features and ease of use. As problematic as CSS is, getting things in the right place is still dramatically easier than w
5.
by quatrevingts 12y ago
The built-in version has the big advantage that it integrates well with tools: you can statically determine the target of the reference and jump to it.
6.
by quatrevingts 12y ago
Incomplete, not inconsistent; i.e., not everything that is true is provable.
7.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
No, fmap is still an explicit operation.
8.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
The unspoilt countryside can certainly be pleasant, at least for the few that are well-off retired, or don't need access to an urban center to make a decent living, and don't mind driving an hour to do anything. Start putting McMa
9.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
He states that H-M is not used because of the lack of reified generics, which is completely irrelevant. (Hint: type systems perform analysis at compile time; "reified generics" means having type arguments available at run-time.) H
10.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
That is exactly what it means.
11.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
Do you have any experience with the inverse statement? That is, have you had a good experience with optional types in an enterprise context? I'm curious how many runtime errors persist due to the optionality of the type system. Perhaps
12.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
I love doing blind wine tasting, and I do it every time I can get enough people together who are down for it. That said, I think it's easy to draw a hasty conclusion from a very small sample of wines. The thing with wine is that, regar
13.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
To be fair, this is a list of everything inherited, not just one level up, but the full transitive closure. All of the Gen* classes arrived with 2.9 when parallel collections were added. Also, the implicits shown are any implicits which can
14.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
This hardly even saves any LOC over the original two versions, and requires the reader to understand these new annotations. This is what happens when programmers get obsessed with some arbitrary notion of "elegance": they fiddle with the fu
15.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
I'm curious what the cost would be of implementing generics by having an (implicit) parameter for the element size. It would certainly be a bit slower than the fully specialized version, but it avoids boxing and doesn't duplicate code.
16.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
These criticisms of exception handling are primarily based on their implementation in C++; they are not issues inherent in exceptions. Exceptions are clearly more problematic when they are bolted-on after the fact to a language with manual
17.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
I am highly skeptical that they are actively investigating ways to support generics, or that they are willing to change anything else about the language to support them better. This statement, part of the standard Go talking points, seems t
18.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
Yes. Not sure how much I feel like talking about generics and error handling again, but those are the first two reasons. I can respect them wanting error conditions to be explicit, but then they give you no acceptable way of dealing with th
19.
by quatrevingts 13y ago
Except that you lose type safety (or write an implementation for every permutation of types..)
20.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
And since it's at runtime, strike out the "much of it redundant, requiring a good linker.." bits. Which leaves it sounding pretty good.
21.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
You'd really be OK with gcc being 2-3x slower? As much as I love high-level programming, many of the most interesting and important problems are ones where a "small" constant factor is the difference between great and mediocre.
22.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
I'm not sure what you're getting at with CPS. How do Java's lambda's inhibit CPS? And what do you hope to accomplish with CPS, anyway? I could see you wanting tail-call optimization in order to make CPS useful, but that's a VM limitation, n
23.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
Everyone gets confused by this it seems. You can mutate fields in the enclosing class. You can read locals. If you really want to, you can box a local, and then mutate it inside the box. You can't mutate locals directly, because that would
24.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
Incomplete how exactly?
25.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
Really? new double[] { 1.0, 2.0 }? Arrays.asList("foo", "bar")? Guava's Map builders? Lambdas are what make operations on data structures convenient in Scala and Clojure, not saving a few characters on the handful of literals in your code.
26.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
But I can only make A implement B in the file that defines A, at least according to the comments here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5443344
27.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
This means that your objects are aware of every "container" that might hold them. This does not scale, and it certainly doesn't work for reusing data structures.
28.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
So they pick the option that slows down the programmer? How forward-looking. And yet, Java, .NET, Haskell, O'Caml, etc. are all faster than Go anyway. Not to mention the fact that this makes it harder to reuse data structures and algorithms
29.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
Don't be. He's basically thinking out loud about two languages he knows very little about. It's an entirely content-free post, but because he's famous there's evidently a danger that people might take it seriously. The fact that he clearly
30.
by quatrevingts 14y ago
It's pretty obvious what it means: + means call the + function. Well what does that mean? Probably something additive. Just like if it were called "add". You don't really know in either case unless you read the function. The risk is th

More ›