sklogic

105 ms·

961.
by sklogic 11y ago
I found that sticking to llvm-c interface makes things a bit better.
962.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Imagine them telling you that you’re hopeless You don't have to imagine this with Torvalds. He said this kind of things many times.
963.
by sklogic 11y ago
Yes, to my taste this language is nowhere near a DSL it should have been, but still, there is a significant portion of VM semantics that is hard to implement on top of an existing VM. The article outlines it as follows: "1) Sensor read
964.
by sklogic 11y ago
> maybe you don't want to accept that there are good reasons against I'm a scientist. Before I accept something I need to see it first. I have not seen a single non-straw-man argument against macros yet. Not a single one. Eithe
965.
by sklogic 11y ago
I do not know anyone who started as a contractor. Everyone I know (myself included) moved to contracting after maturing for several years in the industry, building up a reputation and a network of contacts.
966.
by sklogic 11y ago
> 4 months of living expenses requirement can be quite excessive That's what banks want to see, for example, if you apply for a mortgage as a contractor.
967.
by sklogic 11y ago
> It affects how people use the language, and how the community develops around it, and other things. It affects the use (in very positive way), but does not affect the design . But, what is true, is that a majority of people using macr
968.
by sklogic 11y ago
> they exist and are valid. Uhm, no, so far not a single valid non-straw-man argument against macros. It's important to mention that macros do not affect the rest of the language design choices in any way whatsoever. The underlying
969.
by sklogic 11y ago
You may want to take a look at Nanopass: http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/nano-jfp.pdf
970.
by sklogic 11y ago
Same thing - leaky abstraction. Too much host language semantics leaking into the problem domain. It's not a pure BNF, and therefore it's faulty by design.
971.
by sklogic 11y ago
That's exactly the approach I'm preaching. I've built entire layers of languages above Lisp using this kind of eDSLs: https://github.com/combinatorylogic/mbase So, yes, as long as you have a sufficiently
972.
by sklogic 11y ago
> there are people who argue against it These are the people who don't know any better, arguing out of ignorance, not from some valid ground. > Python tries to find a middle ground, conservatively. How exactly? I do not see any
973.
by sklogic 11y ago
In this particular case it's the underlying VM which provides domain-specific semantics, not the language itself. If you could retarget Lua or JS to run on top of this peculiar VM - fine, but building a new language is easier.
974.
by sklogic 11y ago
API leaks abstractions and does not provide any domain-specific semantics. Imagine an API for, say, parsing. A DSL would have a nice BNF-like syntax and abstract any implementation details away. API - well, you won't ever get any furth
975.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Direct interpreters (based on the AST) are slow, but dead simple. Still far too complex, and, what is worse, very convoluted. You cannot split such an interpreter into series of very small and easy to understand steps, it must do every
976.
by sklogic 11y ago
> The thought of 1) machine code generation and Don't do it. Compile into a higher level representation and reuse and existing machine code generator (LLVM, even plain C), or compile into a higher level VM with threaded code impleme
977.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Am I missing something? Yes, you're missing an entire huge world of the domain-specific languages. > Don't we have enough programming languages to get by? No, not even nearly enough. There is no such thing as a general-pur
978.
by sklogic 11y ago
> Essentially, you can use any programming language to do the job. Of course you can code even in Brainfuck if you want. But the difference in time and quality would easily be in orders of magnitude. > Granted, it takes a while to lea
979.
by sklogic 11y ago
This is exactly what makes Python a bad language. Lack of expressive power results in an unnecessary complexity of the code. It's much easier to comprehend a short, compact code written in the familiar, domain-specific idioms rather th
980.
by sklogic 11y ago
> it's probably easier to write interpreter than compiler It's not easier. Interpreters are much more complex and much less robust than compilers.
981.
by sklogic 11y ago
> is a strict pragmatism (rejection of any ideology) What? Python is very pushy on its ideology of "there should be only one way to do it", which is an exact opposite of a Lisp complete lack of ideology: "do it any way you
982.
by sklogic 11y ago
Leanr a bit of logic. This is nowhere near a proof that a use of a certain language is a direct or indirect cause of a genocide and not just a symptom, and that censoring this language would have stopped the genocide. Not to mention that
983.
by sklogic 11y ago
Shitstorm was not just words - crybabies can cry whatever they want. But Eich got sacked, which is totally different. No retard was ever sacked for being called a retard. EDIT: clearly you're failing to notice a difference between call
984.
by sklogic 11y ago
Ever been to Odessa? An epic butthurt is guaranteed from an Odessan Jewish peculiar humour.
985.
by sklogic 11y ago
And how exactly did you manage to draw a connection between these outrageous facts and a use of an innocent derogatory language?
986.
by sklogic 11y ago
No, "idiot" is exactly a synonym, in even a strictest definition. And both versions of your sentence are equally wrong, deliberately misleading and twisted. Words have absolutely nothing to do with "opportunities" and &q
987.
by sklogic 11y ago
Did I get it right that you support the shitstorm against Eich and Card? In my book, SJWs are by far much more evil and destructive than anyone from my list.
988.
by sklogic 11y ago
Of course semantics can hurt, obviously. But the choice of synonyms does not, and anyone claiming otherwise must try really hart to prove such an outrageous claim.
989.
by sklogic 11y ago
> When you use the word retard you dehumanise people with LD. No. When I use the word "retard" I'm pointing out on a lack of mental ability demonstrated by a particular person. And I do not even want to discuss anything th
990.
by sklogic 11y ago
Elsewhere in this thread you can find a comment from a brother of a mentally handicapped person who explains why he'd prefer the term 'retard'. So it's not that simple. I suspect that rational people (i.e., worthy contri

More ›