tentaTherapist

9 ms·

1.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
This is such a ridiculously inefficient means of raising money, for everyone involved. What would it take to just get people to pay for the services that they use, out of gratitude?
2.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
I... why? There was no need to compare this talented guy with an over-the-top, megalomaniacal and egocentric scientist from a sci-fi cartoon.
3.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Can you and GP please avoid turning this into a battle to see which is the worse country?
4.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
You say 'beloved Objective-C'. Sorry if this is really off topic, but is objc_msgsend (the whole late-binding thing) or anything else about Objective-C particularly appealing? Maybe the decent unoptimized speeds or the fact that y
5.
Ask HN: Why aren't there more Google Search competitors?
4 points by tentaTherapist 9y ago|8 comments
6.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Because it's a term that means nothing but makes for good marketing.
7.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Nope, this is exactly what low-level Rust code should look like.
8.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
I agree with your message but you're way too harsh. At least these guys, unlike antivaxxers, have genuine concerns. Maybe they're not considering the even worse alternatives in their comments, but then again, that's not reall
9.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
But you'd have to do that in Rust too, or at least use a library like petgraph, because Rust hates cycles even more than C++.
10.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
But then your program uses slow, cache-unfriendly and much-reviled reference counting. I'd even prefer Ocaml and its fully-featured GC if C++ is only fast in artificial benchmarks and not in idiomatic code, which apparently must use RC
11.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Yeah, but unwrap is very, very explicitly marked, and its use is discouraged, and unlike null it's nothing close to an undesirable edge case on every single pointer. Edit: In my perfect language there wouldn't be an unwrap, only m
12.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Uh, inherently faster as in, there's nothing about the API design that makes it easier to optimize.
13.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Showing them all seems a bit impossible because the number would blow up really quickly, wouldn't it? Maybe it could categorise them, but that could be misleading, too... I don't know.
14.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
That is a very well-named problem.
15.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Like you said, VanillaJS isn't inherently faster than any of these frameworks, but the cost to the user (and the increased API surface) isn't worth that tiny improvement in code clarity.
16.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
> the employee is then forced to prioritise their work themselves and only focus on the pieces of work that align with their incentives. Which should align with the company incentivies. Why would their incentives align at all?
17.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
So that people don't get angry?
18.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
If you give me code and I don't run it, I don't really think I'm at fault here. If this was opt-in maybe they'd receive more sympathy, but as it stands wasting my electricity to make them a fraction of a cent is a rather
19.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
But if most users have integrated graphics, and even with dedicated graphics cards the improvement is nowhere near an order of magnitude, would it be much better?
20.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
There isn't any LLVM support yet, and it doesn't look like anyone's working on it.
21.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Honestly that sounds really creepy.
22.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Why use hashes instead of, e.g., semver, or hash + patch version, so that you could patch Heartbleed easily?
23.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
And you fix these errors as they arise, adding platform-specific hacks to the library as necessary. Your product still ends up much smaller and better-performing than the others.
24.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Why not ship an installer that checks for and appropriately installs DLLs?
25.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
"Proper key management is a full-time job" is such a surprisingly accurate description of the situation! <3
26.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Yeah, it's authenticated but only to the degree that you know that they own the domain name, and there are no other guarantees that they are who they say they are. Secure is way too strong a word.
27.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Okay, but shouldn't developers make security easy? This makes introducing a sizable hole into existing security easy, which is the opposite of what you'd want.
28.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
Good question, but although I'm too stupid to come up with an answer, I hope there is one, because the whole majority-exploiting-the-minority scenario sounds awful.
29.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
But if a standard library implementation is allowed to do something why can't I?
30.
by tentaTherapist 9y ago
I really hope I'm wrong, but if you're talking about VB.NET, then my personal experience with it has been the exact opposite of easy and convenient. Edit: Okay, good, VB.NET is probably not the Visual Basic you were talking about.

More ›