uryga

21 ms·

151.
by uryga 6y ago
recent thing with github and renaming "master"
152.
by uryga 6y ago
i didn't downvote you, but since you're asking – the first part of your comment is needlessly snarky and doesn't really add much beyond "yeah, i'm frustrated by people adding unnecessary complexity just because it&
153.
by uryga 6y ago
> Also, what stops something like [defining add as subtraction] cmon... "it doesn't guard you against every logic error under the sun" isn't a great argument
154.
by uryga 6y ago
i appreciate your concern :) but honestly, is that a practical problem, or a theoretical one? the end result was fine to watch in our case. (and upload itself wasn't of great quality anyway)
155.
by uryga 6y ago
> H.264 was supported everywhere this. our TV (a few years old, "smart") can play videos from a network drive, but doesn't support H.265. reencoding a season's worth of episodes to H.264 takes a while...
156.
by uryga 6y ago
> couldn't you fix this with dependent types somehow? quoting from the post: > the way I had set things up, every time I used the [sqrt] symbol I had to supply a proof that what I was taking the square root of was non-negative. &
157.
by uryga 6y ago
from my experience digging through Cython output: unless you type-annotate EVERYTHING C-style, Cython just uses the CPython C-API (PyObject_New, PY_INCREF, etc). so you'd have to ship all of CPython anyway... as mentioned elsewhere in
158.
by uryga 6y ago
i've heard a lot about SBCL and the efficient machine code it generates. i'm guessing a lot of the heap stuff can be optimized away if the code is written right (e.g. via escape analysis or eliminating intermediate values). though
159.
by uryga 6y ago
tbh... does that matter? until they ship no-reboot-updates, their (hypothetical) effort doesn't do much for me....
160.
by uryga 6y ago
it's a shame :( and honestly, i think the whole "if it needs statements, it should be a named function anyway" argument is misguided (and maybe kind of a post-hoc justification of the limitations of Python lambdas). introduci
161.
by uryga 6y ago
interesting! why not?
162.
by uryga 6y ago
> You would not get through code review with that in any shop that has discipline. ... and i'd never think to try! that's why i mentioned using it in a REPL and called it a hack :) it's just fun. i played around with bytec
163.
by uryga 6y ago
> Allow to inline them and you will see monsters in the wild. idk... you can write a huge ugly if-elif-else like this: a if foo else b if bar else c if quux else d but most people just don't.
164.
by uryga 6y ago
btw, my favorite FP-hack: let-in expressions with lambdas OR list comprehensions: let x = foo in expr can be [expr for x in (foo,)][0] (kinda reads like a Haskell `where` clause!) or: (lambda x = foo: expr)() useful in
165.
by uryga 6y ago
what do you think about if-expressions? x if cond else y IMO match-expressions have basically the same benefits/trade-offs.
166.
by uryga 6y ago
the Syntax section has a bit more: > "[...] making it an expression would be inconsistent with other syntactic choices in Python. All decision making logic is expressed almost exclusively in statements, so we decided to not deviate
167.
by uryga 6y ago
glad to see this! though it's a shame that the proposed `match/case` is a statement, not an expression: > "We propose the match syntax to be a statement, not an expression. Although in many languages it is an expression, b
168.
by uryga 6y ago
> What do you mean by a main-less script? probably something that's common in "scripting" languages, where you don't have to wrap your code in main(), it just executes from the top: myscript.py ----------- pri
169.
by uryga 6y ago
why is "@" so bad? i mean it's a huge glyph but it's just an operator like +-×÷•, you get used to it
170.
by uryga 6y ago
i'd love a group like that!
171.
by uryga 6y ago
[you're probably joking, but in case you're not...] people also pronounce "GAN" (Generative Adversarial Network) with a hard G even though Generative is a soft G (J). and how do you pronounce "MUA" (Mail User A
172.
by uryga 6y ago
> [Actix] is just one of the more notable times that something like that has happened. edited my comment to reflect this, thanks i was trying to keep my summary relatively opinion-free – the internet probably doesn't need my take on
173.
by uryga 6y ago
for anyone not following Rust, the drama around the (popular) Actix web framework was a prominent instance of this. iirc people opened issues and PRs re: the project's (significant) usage of `unsafe`, but the maintainer (Nikolay Kim) w
174.
by uryga 6y ago
> Go does not inline range operation. do you know why? [not super familiar with Go, just curious]
175.
by uryga 6y ago
would `become` be a good alternate name for it?
176.
by uryga 6y ago
are you arguing against keyword arguments in general, or against def foo(a, b, **kwargs): """ Refer to `bar` for the full list of allowed kwargs. """ ... i don't mind the former, bu
177.
by uryga 6y ago
re: "binary", i think the article just uses the term incorrectly – it's probably intended to mean "single file thing you invoke directly". i'm guessing they didn't just say "script" bc of possibl
178.
by uryga 6y ago
[not defending patent trolls, just poking what seems to be a hole in the concept] > Its okay if they are actually still in the process of building the thing what should happen with a patent holder who sells off their R&D department,
179.
by uryga 6y ago
i learned about OS/2 from the 'Doing Windows' series. really recommend it, it's a great read about the history behind all this stuff, the computing landscape of that period, and why OS/2 was a huge achievement. htt
180.
by uryga 6y ago
i understand the idea of proof-of-work. but idk, when i think about all that electricity and computing power wasted on guessing arbitrary numbers... just doesn't feel right kind of reminds me of how FAANG job interviews require memoriz

More ›