ragnese

62 ms·

721.
by ragnese 6y ago
> I'm not passing judgement necessarily. It's just what everyone I know does. I like funny pictures, too. My point is that there are better sites than Reddit for it. So if that's who they're trying to retain, they&#x2
722.
by ragnese 6y ago
That's why I said "most". Is that incompatible with what you said?
723.
by ragnese 6y ago
Thank you for the level-headed view of it. I'm not level-headed when it comes to advertising and I'm not very apologetic about it. Somehow it feels more gross than a radio commercial. On the radio I can tell the difference between
724.
by ragnese 6y ago
> I think most people that use reddit are using it for specific sub-reddits, not for memes or 'shitposting'. Perhaps. But the shear size of r/pic or r/jokes makes me doubt that most people are there for "seriou
725.
by ragnese 6y ago
The people who want more non-meme content? I'm not sure. I'm not saying they've all moved on yet, but I bet they will. For example, I preferred some of the more tech-related subreddits. Then I discovered HackerNews and Lobste
726.
by ragnese 6y ago
I genuinely wonder if the people in charge of Reddit ever come around to places like this to read these sentiments. Hell, they actually only need to read actual Reddit posts to understand that many people are utterly disgusted by their tact
727.
by ragnese 6y ago
Genuine, unrelated, question: What is an "influencer"? I've only recently started seeing people refer to others or themselves as "influencers" (I'm not on Snapchat/Tiktok/Instagram/Twitter). The
728.
by ragnese 6y ago
It didn't always used to be like this. I agree that if I were attempting to join and use Reddit today, I wouldn't last more than a few visits.
729.
by ragnese 6y ago
How so? I mean, obviously it's impossible to make a decent educated guess since basically the entirety of most peoples' interactions with computers stems from the near-monopoly Microsoft had on personal computing in the 90s. But I
730.
by ragnese 6y ago
I think the people rationalizing are wrong. You're right that you see a lot of posts with "X is a Foo written in Rust!". A few years ago I saw a bunch about Go, too. That seems to have died down. But I think the real reason i
731.
by ragnese 6y ago
> I suppose the only remaining discomfort I anticipate is if you have an internal abstraction that might one day be exposed externally in a library. That refactoring doesn’t seem fun, but I suppose these things rarely sneak up on you. Th
732.
by ragnese 6y ago
Your concerns are not unwarranted. I've done several Rust projects and usually there really isn't any trade-off. If you want something open for extension, use a trait unless you can prove to yourself that you "can't&qu
733.
by ragnese 6y ago
But the one I replied to said that he/she would "almost" be willing to give all that up, except something-something-sandbox.
734.
by ragnese 6y ago
I'm slightly confused. First, PlayerClass is not a trait. And the methods would have to be edited when you add a case to the enum. Is that what you're asking? It's different than if you were implementing those methods on a tr
735.
by ragnese 6y ago
I don't know. A bunch of people are writing Electron apps. That's surely also a sandbox, right?
736.
by ragnese 6y ago
I'm not sure I follow. Both C++ and Rust allow us to put structs/classes on the stack or the heap. Rust has trait objects which use a vtables. Are Rust traits the same as "classes" then? When people say "OOP" o
737.
by ragnese 6y ago
> Does Rust have something like C++'s const methods? Where you can have a method that mutates a member, but doesn't logically mutate from the caller's perspective? Yes! "Interior mutatbility" is the term to searc
738.
by ragnese 6y ago
Which I also don't understand. Is that a style of overusing classes where functions would suffice (FooHelper)? Or is it something about the language? Because almost all popular languages have classes. Rust and Go call them "struct
739.
by ragnese 6y ago
> Related: I heard someone else say that while Clojure and Erlang embrace immutability for concurrency, Rust shows that you can "just mutate". It's still safe for concurrency (due to its type system). Yes! I will repeat a
740.
by ragnese 6y ago
>it’s sex toys looking like human genitalia Not that it matters, but reading the comment you replied to, it sounds like they are not shaped like human genitalia...
741.
by ragnese 6y ago
The problem comes when someone else needs to also borrow the Foo, even immutably. In Java-style OOP, you typically have "objects" that own other objects, all the way down. And you manage state internally. So it often comes up that
742.
by ragnese 6y ago
Seriously. Every time I'm forced to use Python or JavaScript I feel like I'm fumbling around totally blind.
743.
by ragnese 6y ago
Agreed. Same with "OOP". Who the hell knows what people really mean when they say that. Those people who think that "FP" means "type system like Haskell" are wrong, though, IMO. It precludes languages that are
744.
by ragnese 6y ago
And it's probably going to be a pretty big issue in a few years, IMO.
745.
by ragnese 6y ago
I realized after I wrote the comment that I was really referring to the closure traits when I said that. And I really should have said "kind" instead of "type" because, like you said, every different function has its own
746.
by ragnese 6y ago
It does have to, because of the way mutation and ownership work. Which is great! But it makes functional programming awkward. The language does not "steward" you toward function composition.
747.
by ragnese 6y ago
> Anyways, I guess this gets easier over time, right? Yes. > Should I avoid using closures all over the place? Not necessarily. > Should my code look more like C and less like Haskell? Yes. Others sometimes don't like to hear
748.
by ragnese 6y ago
> How is git designed to use email? https://www.git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Appendix-C%3A-Git-Command...
749.
by ragnese 6y ago
> My worry is that these personal assistants will all be provided "free" by giant companies and hosted in the cloud so I won't want to use them. That's all but guaranteed if it's any time in the next decade or so
750.
by ragnese 6y ago
Well, the way unit tests work in Rust is that you write a test module inside your module. So, in a case like I'm describing, the unit test is usually (always?) right under the private function in question. So, technically, yes, that&#x

More ›