verdax_1

5 ms·

1.
by verdax_1 10y ago
Maybe the code base contains a bunch of edge cases where they assume 140 and trying to do anything else causes crashes or other poorly defined misbehavior. (Not what you were talking about but also a legitimate but unfortunate answer)
2.
by verdax_1 10y ago
My guess is that if they make a general purpose programming AI then all other jobs will also be nonexistent besides being famous and doing YouTube reviews of movies. My thought is that the problems in the way of AI programming are more dif
3.
by verdax_1 10y ago
I think something like this actually happened with one of the first scheme implementations, but that was because they wrote the GC in scheme so they had to do it that way for a very small subset of the system (is the GC code). But yeah oth
4.
by verdax_1 10y ago
I don't see it as one. It just happens to be the one I encountered that had the feature. Please suggest better, I wasn't that fond of R.
5.
by verdax_1 10y ago
Haskell for lazy FP, pattern matching, and monads; ocaml for strict FP and a crazy expressive module system; C# for industry OO; lua for dynamic language and prototype inheritance; ruby for runtime meta programming; lisp for macros; forth f
6.
by verdax_1 10y ago
It seems that a few years ago several big name tech companies found themselves at the limit of what they could do with the c#/java style languages. But they weren't willing to go back to c/c++. Facebook started experimentin
7.
by verdax_1 10y ago
I actually found myself factoring my code differently after learning lambda calc. It at the very least seemed to result in better code (c#) so I would say there is practical benefits.
8.
by verdax_1 10y ago
I might go a step further and append "an appropriately implemented macro". Just because something has a good name doesn't mean it's not filled with crazy. Otherwise I totally agree with your point.
9.
by verdax_1 10y ago
This is really emphasized in things like dmfea and other failure mode analysis documents or regulated industry. They want you to document the likelihood, your ability to recover from the failure, as well as the cost o the failure. You can
10.
by verdax_1 10y ago
I like the way you're thinking, but that sort of thing probably doesn't get past a committee. "Hey we might not be able to think of an application but that doesn't mean our users won't have a legitimate reason for
11.
by verdax_1 10y ago
Also worth considering that our processors are handling billions of ops per second. One in a million might be happening all the time even for one user.