sklogic

54 ms·

481.
by sklogic 11y ago
Lambda is easy to reason about, since it is guaranteed to not have any side effects. To juggle the other kinds of expressions like this you'd need a more elaborate purity analysis. So, lambda is a very easy prey for the DCE. Also, ther
482.
by sklogic 11y ago
It is rather trivial to check if a control flow is reducible (can be a platform requirement, e.g., OpenCL spec demands this). But it is unlikely that you can do too much of a static analysis with a computed goto, and the latter is the most
483.
by sklogic 11y ago
Of course. But only if goto was not removed from the underlying language.
484.
by sklogic 11y ago
There is a still a noticeable difference in performance of a `goto`-based FSM implementation and a switch-in-a-loop one. And there is a huge performance difference between a computed `goto` implementation of a VM vs. a switch-based one. B
485.
by sklogic 11y ago
Not any different from generating LLVM IR in a text form.
486.
by sklogic 11y ago
Also worth mentioning an invaluable learning tool: 'cpp' backend in LLVM. It emits an idiomatic C++ code that generates any given IR module using the LLVM API.
487.
by sklogic 11y ago
Yes, they vary widely. With a vast majority of cases being trivial, simpler-than-textbook, and the rest mostly suitable for a nice and clean split between the C.R.U.D. workflow part and all that complex logic you're talking about, whi
488.
by sklogic 11y ago
There is a plain text form of an LLVM IR. It is a bit easier to pritnf it than a fully featured C.
489.
by sklogic 11y ago
I would not call it "much easier". Complexity is nearly equivalent, with LLVM being somewhat simpler (if used via llvm-c wrapper).
490.
by sklogic 11y ago
I tried "amplifying" C with Lisp-like syntax macros. Looks like there is a lot of potential on this route: https://github.com/combinatorylogic/clike
491.
by sklogic 11y ago
By this "once" I meant big, generalisable concepts like CRUD (read this thread, your tiny bash scripts and such are out out of context). For this, yes, once it is discovered, it MUST be automated, and not doing so is unforgivable.
492.
by sklogic 11y ago
E.g., if you wave in first, read that your balance is low, and then go to a ticket machine to top up, it will be counted as a maximum fare travel. Still the case, after so many years. Those retards did not even think that ticket machines ma
493.
by sklogic 11y ago
I am talking about things being repeated over and over again, far more than just a couple of times. And the only thing organisations are lacking is sanity. The rest is trivial, proven many times. I will regard all of them as lowly and stu
494.
by sklogic 11y ago
> You can be entering a bunch of convulted rules into a GUI based system or you can be writing them in code. There are more options than just these two. The best way is to write your rules in a nice, readable, dense DSL, designed specifi
495.
by sklogic 11y ago
No, it means exactly this. You know absolutely nothing about engineering, and you keep proving it. As well as millions of other similarly under-educated semi-programmers. Know why? Because there is no place for democracy in science. It does
496.
by sklogic 11y ago
I am an engineer. I do not need years of experience in a technology to assess it. And, btw., you may not know what my "toying around" really means in terms of depth and exposure. So no, it is your astonishing ignorance here. You
497.
by sklogic 11y ago
In a sane and rational world - yes, it would have been automated. But in our world everything is done the most twisted way possible, either deliberately or out of some deeply ingrained human stupidity. I cannot stop shaking every time I int
498.
by sklogic 11y ago
> and it evolved from a mechanism to display static documents It evolved from a deliberately dumbed-down mechanism. Much more sane options existed back than, but for reasons unknown (laziness is quite likely) a choice of a technological
499.
by sklogic 11y ago
> doesn't mean they're super common I still cannot understand what justifies re-solving a solved problem over and over again? Solved once? Automate it. > Most of us seem to be working on an application meeting some trivial b
500.
by sklogic 11y ago
If you do not think that all that web stack is horribly overengineered, then you know nothing about engineering at all. If you do not see dozens of ways it could have been orders of magnitude simpler without surrendering any functionality,
501.
by sklogic 11y ago
PHP became a barely passable language only after HHVM was created. Before that it only had totally pathetic implementations. Edit: do downvoters really think the original PHP implementation was not a pile of crap?!? Amusing!
502.
by sklogic 11y ago
Funny. Most of my career was about problems with no known solutions. I wonder why people keep calling them "rare". After all, why even bother solving a solved problen? And yes, most useful prototyping tools for me were far from C+
503.
by sklogic 11y ago
Just take a look at Toyota scandal. There is a same bunch of slackers in embedded, not any different from that pathetic lot that gave PHP a bad karma.
504.
by sklogic 11y ago
Just admit it. Most of the challenges in the frontend development are only there because of a horrible overengineering of this entire stack. It was supposed to be easy.
505.
by sklogic 11y ago
All your web stuff is not a real programming. Not because it is "easier" or "less valuable" than, say, aerospace or automotive, but because you're doing it wrong. Among all things, the entire web stack of technologi
506.
by sklogic 11y ago
It must be possible to keep the current structure (some form of a DOM plus a scripting language with a full access to it), and still have a dead simple Tk-like event model around it. It's all about overengineering. Tk demonstrated that
507.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Programming is nothing but design No, it's a different kind of a "design". It's an engineering. You've got a set of constraints and need to optimise a solution until all the constraints are met. Purely mechanic
508.
by sklogic 11y ago
As I answered elsewhere in this thread, I did not say a word about design . I was talking about programming solely. Design is not only a complex problem, it is an unsolved problem. Is there any passable design out there? I have not seen it
509.
by sklogic 11y ago
Kolmogorov and Chaitin got a different view on this matter. This is actually what science is all about - finding an information in data, or, in other words, measuring the complexity. If you can reduce a complex set of data to a simple algor
510.
by sklogic 11y ago
> people can assume things they don't participate in are simple, stupid, and trivial I do not "assume" that web technologies are stupid. I know they're stupid and I can prove they're stupid. Where shall I start?

More ›