uryga

52 ms·

1. 481.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   I wondered about it too! From what I read, the term seems to be controversial in the webdev community: > "From the beginning there were people opposing the term, suggesting alternatives such as monomorphic or polymorphic" [1] A
2. 482.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   afaik apostrophes are used for lifetimes.
3. 483.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   I think of them as ordered pairs, but would it change anything if they were sets? Order doesn't matter in this question.
4. 484.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   You're right – I guess I got too hung up on the types. What I meant to say is that I prefer to distinguish "`a` is not equal to `b`" and "equality between `a` and `b` is undefined"; the typing aspect is kind of orth
5. 485.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   Okay, it looks like I misunderstood your original point: > "Are these two things equivalent?" has an unambiguous answer regardless of whether the things are of different types. as "Isomorphic things should compare equal&qu
6. 486.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   I was referring to this: > Also, `==` doesn’t always answer the question of whether two things are equivalent because the examples you posteda kinda make it look like it does, i.e. `1.0 == 1` even though one is a float and the other is a
7. 487.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   Could you explain how your example shows that?
8. 488.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   It's not unambiguous at all. If I do "część" == "część".encode('<some-obscure-encoding>') should it return True? They are 'equivalent' after all. But that would mean it should work
9. 489.▲
   by uryga 8y ago

   Are you sure `Matrix[[1,1],[1,0]] * * 46` isn't optimized into a constant value by the bytecode compiler? Idk Ruby much, but it seems like a possiblity.
10. 490.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Another comment in this thread said that it's due to the license on Nvidia's drivers. So technically you can use the hardware in a datacenter, just not with the official drivers. Unfortunately it seems that the open-source drive
11. 491.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Ah, you beat me to it! I was writing my comment and then forgot about the tab for a while.
12. 492.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    You can also optimize non-recursive tail calls: def add10(y: int) -> int: return y+10 def def add11(x: int) -> int: # won't get optimized return add10(x)+1 def add11_tail(x: int) -> int: # sho
13. 493.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Thanks, and good luck! Followed you on GH. noreml sounds interesting too, I'll check it out when I have better internet access!
14. 494.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I'm very curious about your solution! If there's a place where I could follow the development, I'd be grateful for a link or, if it's not too much of a hassle, a ping to the email in my profile when you have something yo
15. 495.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I don't know about your question, but Cython recently added [1] the option to use native Python type annotations (Python 3.6, PEP 484) instead of its previous C-like dialect. That could lead to a situation where a sensibly type-annotat
16. 496.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Also known as the `absurd` function IIRC?
17. 497.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Yeah, Void makes for great for inductive definitions ;)
18. 498.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Do you have any ideas for a more ergonomic way of accessing the fields? I'm asking because I'm working on an enum library for Python (shameless plug: [0]) and looking for ways to improve it, though of course it has different cons
19. 499.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I'd guess (no real evidence) it could be because a lot (most?) software runs on timescales where 10% isn't that significant. Also, maybe something to do with Amdahl's law, where speeding up one part by 10% rarely speeds up th
20. 500.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I think I understand, thanks for explaining.
21. 501.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I'm aware of that, and I read the generics proposal linked. I commented here because I wanted to respond to this: > Should [be just libraries]? I think you are asserting facts that are not in evidence. I tried to describe why I feel
22. 502.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I'm a bit confused, and I'd like to understand your position better. I can see why arrays, structs/tuples, or [tagged] unions are usually primitives – they sort of express different fundamental layouts of data in memory, so t
23. 503.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    GP probably meant something like "an internal API that's exposed in case you need it but gives no guarantees about stability because it's still evolving"
24. 504.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=152428
25. 505.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    What do you mean?
26. 506.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Thanks! For anyone interested, I found a paper on the topic (pdf): "View-dependent geometry" [Paul Rademacher, 1999] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/fall00/cs597b/p...
27. 507.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    I know very little about this field - why would a model need to be distorted to give an anime look? (Also, what does perspective-dependent mean in this context?)
28. 508.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Could you describe some situations where adding a field broke stuff? I can only imagine that happening if your code cares about the exact binary representation/layout of a struct - so serialization, FFI or just bit-twiddling.
29. 509.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    One thing I'd like to add: they're not actually 4-Dimensional. (read the link for more on this)
30. 510.▲
    by uryga 8y ago

    Quaternions, in three words: "Rotations in 3D". I like this explanation: https://probablydance.com/2017/08/05/intuitive-quaternions/