weberc2

10 ms·

61.
by weberc2 7y ago
The Go development story is already pretty easy. Easier than Python if you need concurrency or performance.
62.
by weberc2 7y ago
blocking webservers are a common problem in Python. Even if you have async, all it takes is a CPU bound task or some sync IO deep in some third party library and its lights out for your server, and no debug info for you either.
63.
by weberc2 7y ago
> No amount of async/await or goroutines can solve this problem Presumably he’s not serving the model but running it, which is cpu bound, in which case Goroutines would solve the problem.
64.
by weberc2 7y ago
No, data science is typically cpu expensive. Python is fundamentally single threaded and slow at that, so you have to be very clever to work around the issue (e.g., running a separately scalable service for your data crunching work). Contra
65.
by weberc2 7y ago
I would also expect that it’s easier to address the co2 output of a single coal plant than a million cars due to economies of scale. The solution space for internal combustion engines is constrained by size, weight, and serviceability which
66.
by weberc2 7y ago
In your eg, what is the problem exactly? This a rhetorical question, I’m just not following.
67.
by weberc2 7y ago
> I guess it's turtles all the way down, because (from my pov at least) deciding on what "structures a type must implement" is pretty similar to saying "a table is a table only if it's got 4 legs". The idea
68.
by weberc2 7y ago
> In the real world we can still use any piece of wood or stone as a table as long as food doesn’t fall off it, because said piece of wood/stone quacks and walks like a table, while Plato or Aristotle or most of the static type prop
69.
by weberc2 7y ago
It’s fine to compare static and dynamic, but it’s important to understand the things you are comparing so you don’t make silly (and very common) false dichotomies like the one you point out. The problem isn’t the comparison, but laziness.
70.
by weberc2 7y ago
That’s not the issue at all, and we know this because the project was advertised as secure and the critics were arguing that it wasn’t advertised as such. This is characteristically different than your basketball analogy because it is neith
71.
by weberc2 7y ago
I reject the axiom. No one is above criticism provided the criticism is rooted in fact (i.e., defamation is not criticism).
72.
by weberc2 7y ago
FWIW, I don't have a dog in this fight. On the one hand, there is the maintainer who is within his rights to accept or reject patches as he wishes (although it's not great that he's allegedly falsely advertising his project a
73.
by weberc2 7y ago
It's also the choice of anyone else to criticize him for not accepting security patches.
74.
by weberc2 7y ago
> I think you are getting downvoted because the argument is exasperating. It's argument by ignorance: "I don't know therefore it isn't true." That would be unfortunate, because I'm very clearly not saying an
75.
by weberc2 7y ago
Is it unpalatable to ask questions about how much discrimination exists and against whom it is directed? The only “evidence” I’m aware of are implicit association tests and Goldin’s study of blind auditions, neither of which demonstrate dis
76.
by weberc2 7y ago
Not only does it do nothing, but the purported problem—implicit association tests (IATs) “demonstrating” a high degree of racism in an organization or individual—is artificial: the IATs are themselves fraudulent; there is no evidence whatso
77.
by weberc2 7y ago
That wouldn't explain the perceived increase in QA layoffs; you would need something else, such as worse economic conditions.
78.
by weberc2 7y ago
I wonder if it's improvements in automation or if QA responsibilities are increasingly rolling up into standard developer roles or because the line between QA and dev is blurring (e.g., software testing now requires stronger dev/a
79.
by weberc2 7y ago
You're confusing "no FFI whatsoever" with "a sane FFI". Python's legacy interface is insane--it exposes virtually all details of the CPython interpreter to C extensions such that any deviation from CPython&#x27
80.
by weberc2 7y ago
Perhaps Python doesn't need to be all things to all people, but it does need to be performant because people really shouldn't start projects with Python unless they are sure their project will never have performance requirements t
81.
by weberc2 7y ago
FWIW, I upvote things like this on occasion because I often learn more from comments/debate on articles I disagree with than from those that I solidly agree with already. Sadly HN's ability to have productive debate seems to be in
82.
by weberc2 7y ago
It’s literally Python, and if you’re writing sane/correct Python, you should hardly notice (things will work a little better, documentation will be more complete and actually accurate, etc). You can even do many of the same bizarre thi
83.
by weberc2 7y ago
Fair enough. The system is statistical; I’m not claiming every harmful tradition is eliminated and tradition is optimal; only that the most harmful traditions are eliminated or minimized (e.g., human sacrifice is only practiced among very p
84.
by weberc2 7y ago
Most of the irrelevant and harmful stuff was stripped away long ago when it stopped being useful. Most tradition is useful, although the industrial revolution has been cause for reevaluating many, many traditions; even millennia old traditi
85.
by weberc2 7y ago
Headers that slide in and hide the content whenever you scroll to read the content in the first place.
86.
by weberc2 7y ago
Oof, that’s quite a take. Static type checkers by definition don’t change the language’s functionality; they merely check the types.
87.
by weberc2 7y ago
Work is important because we value a high quality of life. Things like comfort and shelter and medicine and protection from violence and all of the other trappings of civilization never mind luxuries like cars, Internet, cell phones, etc. T
88.
by weberc2 7y ago
Python has had static types for years. https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0484/
89.
by weberc2 7y ago
Evolutionary biology can only tell us the bare minimum about what we need to survive as a species. If you want anything more than that (say for example, a cushy third-world quality of life), evolutionary biology is the wrong field (or rathe
90.
by weberc2 7y ago
I'm actually (pleasantly) surprised that someone like Google (or a league of someones like Google) who have deep pockets and so much Python 2 that it's cheaper to maintain Python 2 than it is to port to Python 3. Perhaps they (cor

More ›