smosher

27 ms·

241.
by smosher 15y ago
John Carmack mentioned OCaml and Haskell at the last QuakeCon (on the topics of game scripting and static analysis), citing performance and hiring issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zgYG-_ha28 (1:10ish) I'm not sure about the perfor
242.
by smosher 15y ago
Personally I'd sooner map the somewhat fuzzier concept of "applications language" onto that supposed continuum instead. It would put Go in a clearer category, since it seems to compete with Java and Python better than it does with C. I stil
243.
by smosher 15y ago
I've always taken "systems language" to mean something you might write an OS in while the Go team takes it to mean something you'd replace Java with. Whichever way you want to look at it one thing the Go team can't say is that writing an OS
244.
by smosher 15y ago
(I thought it was OCaml at first... then I realized you had `null` in there which isn't what you'd want.) OCaml/F# are too convenient that way. There's a lot of library stuff that you won't always think to look for.
245.
by smosher 15y ago
I've done this sort of thing to satisfy DRY in general (this kind of nesting problem is quite repetitive), and to generally make the intention more obvious. It's not so pretty in certain other languages, but still worth it. (Edit: I posted
246.
by smosher 15y ago
I found this image succinct and telling: http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/1641/itsfinetrustme.png
247.
by smosher 15y ago
I paid the suggested price for this. I'm only running Linux, so it's well worth supporting it. It's a shame about the EFF though. They're at the top of my list these days.
248.
by smosher 15y ago
Finally... the devs are plain AWESOME. About 10 years ago I had cause to look at the source and I have to say I don't think I've ever seen better written C. The changes we were considering were vetoed, but I marveled at how easy it was t
249.
by smosher 15y ago
I'm not a big fan of NoSQL, but sometimes I want to write a query and sometimes I just want to write some code, and I could see the appeal of doing it in JS, and especially some of the languages that target JS. The thing about SQL as an att
250.
by smosher 15y ago
Ah, thanks. I think I have a handle on the size and shape of it.
251.
by smosher 15y ago
Perfect static analysis is certainly halting-equivalent. What you're describing falls short of perfection, which is what I've suggested.
252.
by smosher 15y ago
The main hack done to the compiler is that generated code avoids certain constructs that inhibit perfect static analysis, allowing the NaCL host (i.e. Google Chrome at present) to verify the behaviour of some untrusted binary before ever e
253.
by smosher 15y ago
I've used ZenDesk. It's not the worst, but if things are as you say I would have thought the FreshDesk folks would have picked a different target. One judgment I can make is that the cloudgroupsyd comment was xenophobic on its face. I wou
254.
by smosher 15y ago
Same here, my #1 reason for supplying -f is also to kill a git repo.
255.
by smosher 15y ago
In the other thread someone mentions using a file named -i. A better approach is to use a file named -X, which is an invalid flag for virtually every file-oriented command. They'll bail out complaining an invalid option has been supplied. O
256.
by smosher 15y ago
That is mostly because it's a different webclient. I have a server running in the office. No one is using it because the webclient isn't good enough.
257.
by smosher 15y ago
The statement was not intended to be rude It comes off as a euphemism for much shorter phrase. Perhaps you didn't intend to be rude, but you failed to be polite. Ignorant of what (Exactly.) You've made assumptions and pinned them to me.
258.
by smosher 15y ago
Then there's no point in using javascript, go do something else No need to be rude. Look, I know JS likes to do things in ugly ways. It has great strength in the consistency of its syntax. That's cool. But by the time you say the word "ju
259.
by smosher 15y ago
Let statement, mostly for side-effects, sufficient for what you need: Sadly it's not. JS has some semantic foibles, but I find myself up against syntax more often than I'd like. Every time I write it I'm impressed at how ugly the syntax i
260.
by smosher 15y ago
`let` is good but please, give me `let ... in` too: let callback = function(a, b) { // ... } in object.registerCallback(callback);
261.
by smosher 15y ago
I've come to this conclusion myself, for similar reasons. Fighting with software that has been poorly ported to Linux as an afterthought has burned me too many times. The solution is to reverse the flow ( and do better.)
262.
by smosher 15y ago
That's the exact thing C does. The only thing Go does differently is put a ban on implicit conversions.
263.
by smosher 15y ago
Oh, very cool.
264.
by smosher 15y ago
Looks promising, but two things jump out at me. My first question is where's the API? This is something I plan to use but I will want some way to export the information to non-users, dead trees, etc. (I'd need it anyway for private boards
265.
by smosher 15y ago
Not liking it. A lot of the things that supposedly suck could be argued either way. Above all, I've found the majority of the cases are the result of a failure to understand language semantics. It certainly sucks when you don't know the lan
266.
by smosher 15y ago
Since when is forking open source code 'stealing' it? According to the FSF? Usually when you do something with it that RMS doesn't like. GPLv3 anyone? (Sorry I couldn't resist.)
267.
by smosher 15y ago
I'm sorry but your comment came off as condescending. The graph I linked coincides with my needs, it was specially crafted to demonstrate that, not to show off some silly notion of elegance with no ounce of application. Sorry for not making
268.
by smosher 15y ago
e^(i * pi * x) for integer x is on the real line. With 'tau' you only get the positive half (consider the integer values of x; which are 2, 4, 6 for 'tau'): http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+e^%28pi+*+i+*+x%29 I've dozens of subtl
269.
by smosher 15y ago
What people don't realize is that Perl means something. (And it doesn't mean specifically Perl 5 .) I'd wager nobody advocating silly name changes (for either 5 or 6) had been writing Perl 10 years ago. In short: it's a marketing lie, an
270.
by smosher 15y ago
That's disingenuous and doesn't clear up anything. Better: Perl 5 Version 16.

More ›