vog

40 ms·

361.
by vog 9y ago
Pardon my ignorance, but can't this be more easily translated into terms of (modern) object oriented programming, where you avoid mutating state? Here, the "natural transformation" is a function that takes an input object whi
362.
by vog 9y ago
Wow. This is a really, really clever hack around this flawed copyright system!
363.
by vog 9y ago
> What do you call it when the blogosphere pressures you to reject all these time-honored, perfectly good techniques, because of some edge case in a niche field that you will never have to deal with? At first the term "over-engine
364.
by vog 9y ago
Ouch! Then we have the choice between a community-provided binary that is cross-validated by multiple build servers of multiple distros, and a vendor-provided binary which is deliberately different and has legal restrictions. Which one woul
365.
by vog 9y ago
> Or that you might waste a click on an article that you have read it before Shouldn't that be the sole decision of the reader? The year suffix enables everyone to make that decision on their own. Some don't want to read anyt
366.
by vog 9y ago
Note that you can do this in old version of Python, too, using the "format-locals" idiom: some_var = ... "{some_var}".format(**locals()) Although this does have some limitations regarding variables to stric
367.
by vog 9y ago
How would that work? The signature of the official binary would be also valid for the "other" binaries.
368.
by vog 9y ago
Assuming that one day there will reproducible builds, how will they ever tell apart the legal use from the illegal use of the (bit-for-bit identical) binary?
369.
by vog 9y ago
Thanks for pointing this out. Indeed, it seems that Mr. Klein rediscovered Cunningham's Law without noticing.
370.
by vog 9y ago
This is by no means specific for HN. For example, a popular German radio moderator and podcaster once said: "If I want to learn something about a topic, and ask a question on air, almost nobody answers. But if instead I make a false (o
371.
by vog 9y ago
Even with that interpretation, the article is flawed, which I explained in another comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15424006
372.
by vog 9y ago
> is the founder of biocentrism, a theory that space and time are constructs of biological sensory limitations This "theory" is old and well-known. However, we are not merely limited by our (biological) sensors, but by our se
373.
by vog 9y ago
That might question our notion of forward/backward time direction, not the concept of time itself. But even then, this would imply that our forward/backward time direction is just convention, much like left/right space direct
374.
by vog 9y ago
The argument is deeply flawed. 1) A term doesn't become imaginary just because it turned out to be physically more elaborate than its initial meaning. The concept of time never vasnished. It just changed a bit. It is still one of the a
375.
by vog 9y ago
Indeed, all those obvious misconceptions make the title addition "(for True Nerds)" sound quite strange. Sitting in front of your computer all day doesn't make you a nerd. Diving into a topic and not stopping until you develo
376.
by vog 9y ago
This strongly reminds me of an old joke stating that the end of the world had to be postponed yet another time.
377.
by vog 9y ago
Nice idea! What surprised me most: It is also very well executed, with a sane and simple API, good performance considerations, and it fits its purpose almost perfectly. Having said that, please pardon my ignorance, but: What's the adva
378.
by vog 9y ago
In other words: strong opinions, loosely held. Shouldn't this be the default expectation, for every article we read, anyway? Such a disclaimer makes only sense if the article was written by some very famous author who must reasonably f
379.
by vog 9y ago
Ouch. In OCaml there is a very simple rule: Development builds run with "-warn-error", which is OCaml-speak for "-Werror". Production builds run without that option - simply because future version of ocamlc might introdu
380.
by vog 9y ago
> it may just be a very cumbersome way of doing something we already knew how to do. This is a very accurate description of many modern developments, most of which tend to attract projects that want to overuse them.
381.
by vog 9y ago
As a German this reminds me of the good old times where we had such a wall straight through the country - in particular, straight through Berlin. The towers were also kind-of remote controlled, but the commands were executed by humans rathe
382.
by vog 9y ago
Nice summary. Out of curiosity: Why are those warnings not automatically included in "-Wall -Wextra"? Is there any issue with enabling them? Are these somewhat experimental? How do these GCC warning compare to Clang warnings? Do t
383.
by vog 9y ago
This article essentially describes a modulo (%) operator for floats, which is well-defined and completely analogous to the integer modulo operation. I always wondered why these aren't part of the FPU command set, or at least part of mo
384.
by vog 9y ago
> who cares that you have a funny name for 201.168m You do care if you frequently have to convert between all those funny units.
385.
by vog 9y ago
> difference between a recogniser Please note that the term "recogniser" is very fuzzy, it could mean a regex matcher, a parser or even a turing-complete thing. Not very helpful for this discussion. > a parser, which outp
386.
by vog 9y ago
Not sure if that answers your question, but: If you are looking for seldom-occurring patterns, your random sample almost certainly won't contain it.
387.
by vog 9y ago
Here's my complete line of reasoning: You can build mutable systems on top of immutable (append-only) systems. But is that a good idea? Yes, it is, for systems which don't have huge amounts of (non-static) data, and/or syst
388.
by vog 9y ago
IBTD. This is mostly an educational issue. Here in Germany the metric system was introduced in 1872 [1], and compared to other European countries we were already late to the party. That's plenty of time for transition. The last generat
389.
by vog 9y ago
I agree with you, but your argument is deeply flawed. There's quite a far stretch between "Y can be built on top of X" and "X is good for Y". To provide an argument that might fill this gap: Most systems don't
390.
by vog 9y ago
This sounds like an exact description of Project Euler.[1] [1] https://projecteuler.net/

More ›