ragnese

41 ms·

361.
by ragnese 5y ago
I only gave three examples because it was a single Hacker News comment and I didn't think I should keep a running catalog of every single hole/issue/inconsistency that I've encountered in the last year of working on a Ty
362.
by ragnese 5y ago
> Your experience couldn't differ more from mine. I wonder, do you think there are bad parts of Java that if you bought into them you would hate Java and your time with it for? Well, I literally said that I shit on Java all the tim
363.
by ragnese 5y ago
I don't know how to say this politely, but I'm afraid to answer this question because I suspect that it will just turn into either a language war or an argument along the lines of "Touché! I can point out a flaw in your favor
364.
by ragnese 5y ago
> I don't think this one is true anymore, assuming you type it correctly. I've provided an example[1]. You are correct that using a generic does fix the issue. But you called that "correct". But why, as a code author,
365.
by ragnese 5y ago
Many of the worst holes are indeed because of JavaScript compat. But, not all of them. See some of my other comments in this thread. There's no earthly reason that a `type` should automatically implement Record<string, unknown> a
366.
by ragnese 5y ago
Ugh. You're going to make me defend Java? I'm going to need a drink... First point: Yes, Java's arrays are broken and it offends me greatly. However, in practice, it's much more common to use Lists, which are not broken.
367.
by ragnese 5y ago
Well, sure, compared to Python, I guess TypeScript's type system is pretty great... Its type system is quite broken and I'm not going to walk back on using that term. Sometimes the TypeScript designers/devs will explain that
368.
by ragnese 5y ago
TypeScript is awful. Like, I shit on Java all the time, and I WAY rather work in Java than TypeScript. TypeScript's type system is so utterly broken that I honestly don't know if my code is ANY more robust than if I had written it
369.
by ragnese 5y ago
> I would argue that the real problem with Java's rollout of generics is at the language level. The language itself introduced some strange gaps in the semantics of generics, such as failing to build any decent bridges between array
370.
by ragnese 5y ago
> Type erasure gets blamed for too much. Want to see some languages that make generics sing? Take a look at SML, Haskell, or Rust. What's another interesting characteristic that unites them? They erase all types. Not just generic t
371.
by ragnese 5y ago
I'm going to cry bitter tears when uMatrix eventually stops working on newer versions.
372.
by ragnese 5y ago
Addicted and losing your job because of psilocybin? I've not tried it myself, but many of my friends have, and anecdotally, none of them have (to my knowledge) ever even gotten to the point of it being a "habit". I can't
373.
by ragnese 5y ago
I don't know my Emacs timeline very well, but I'd be nervous about lexical scope and the more recent cooperative async features of Emacs (lisp) not being represented in a 20 year old book. EDIT: Yeah, Emacs 24 had support for lexi
374.
by ragnese 5y ago
That and i3 is probably doing more work via the CPU and is more than likely doing it in a blocking-single-threaded way.
375.
by ragnese 5y ago
I'm running Plasma on a low-range laptop from 2010 and it runs exactly as smoothly as it does on modern hardware. It was $600 in 2010, has 4 GB RAM and one of the earliest generations of the Core i3, with integrated graphics. If your a
376.
by ragnese 5y ago
I have similar feelings to everything you just said. I assume the appeal to LXQt isn't so much that it's "lightweight" as that it's "simple". Because, like you said, Plasma is actually very lightweight and
377.
by ragnese 5y ago
My needs have become more and more simple over the last couple of years. In particular because my work machine is now a company-provided Apple laptop (ew). So, only all of my personal machines are Linux, and my personal life computing needs
378.
by ragnese 5y ago
And I wonder how often a candidate actually follows up to ask why they failed and whether many interviewers will give honest/complete answers.
379.
by ragnese 5y ago
Something worth mentioning is that your error types do NOT have to implement std::error::Error. The type parameters on Result<T, E> have no constraints. So, only your public API should implement std::error::Error. Likewise, you don&#x
380.
by ragnese 5y ago
I must have missed this topic. What are these encapsulation loopholes that are being closed?
381.
by ragnese 5y ago
Yes, that was the argument I remember reading. You put "system" stuff first, then /home if you did a separate partition for it, etc. Swap last because "hopefully you won't be swapping much anyway". I also (vagu
382.
by ragnese 5y ago
I remember being fooled by the whole "We're Swiss, isn't that great?" marketing at the beginning. It was disappointing, to say the least, when I learned that Switzerland is part of the N-eyes agreement(s). Truth is that
383.
by ragnese 5y ago
I'm not a big-time Mac user- only using it for work. So, I'm usually plugged in to a power source. I also don't use Chrome or Safari, so my answer is almost completely useless to you. :P But, those times when I am "free
384.
by ragnese 5y ago
> As for why we do so much at runtime, my assertion is we check at runtime that which is determined at runtime. When getting data from outside the static program, there is little help the static type system can offer. So, deep in your sy
385.
by ragnese 5y ago
I have. I generally like Kotlin, but even that makes it a little too cumbersome to work with "newtypes" such as a NonEmptyString type. Here's what I do for a NotBlankString in Kotlin 1.5+: @JvmInline value class NotBlankStrin
386.
by ragnese 5y ago
I believe you're being disingenuous. I'm rambling because our programming languages make it awkward, difficult, and performance-sub-optimal to do such things. If you do what I often do, you have to wrap and unwrap your primitives
387.
by ragnese 5y ago
Don't get me wrong, I mostly like working Kotlin. But the more I do, the more I realize what a hodgepodge of features it really is. A bunch of features don't really work together that well. And a bunch of features are only 80% (or
388.
by ragnese 5y ago
> Type checking is not a panacea. You cannot use type checking to spot and fix all bugs. I didn't say it was or it could. > Funny enough the problem you raised was trivially solvable by creating a BNF-like checker based on the s
389.
by ragnese 5y ago
I don't want to write a validator and litter calls to it throughout my code base. I want the "validator" to be the constructor of a type (or a refinement mechanism, etc). Then every function in my code base can have a clear c
390.
by ragnese 5y ago
> My point was that focusing on an empty string as the hill to die on was a touch artificial. There must be a term for this phenomenon. My original reply that sparked this thread could be tl;dr as "I get frustrated with most program

More ›