wtetzner

17 ms·

271.
by wtetzner 1y ago
> I/O is almost always the main bottleneck. People say this all the time, and usually it's just an excuse not to optimize anything. First, I/O can be optimized. It's very likely that most servers are either wasteful i
272.
by wtetzner 1y ago
It's much easier to integrate some Wasm than it is to rearchitect your software to run on a GPU.
273.
by wtetzner 1y ago
Yeah, the thing that's new and hasn't been done before is the level of adoption.
274.
by wtetzner 1y ago
Yeah, nearly everything is in some way a rehash of something that existed before at this point.
275.
by wtetzner 1y ago
Which were mostly tied down to specific languages and GC'd runtimes. You seem to have a big problem with Wasm just because bytecoode runtimes have been done before.
276.
by wtetzner 1y ago
Sure, but that's much more complex to implement, and comes with its own overhead.
277.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I don't necessarily disagree with not having a string type in a low level language, but you seem very fixated on needing a character type. Why not just have string be an opaque type, and have functions to iterate over code points, grap
278.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I don't think Zig is memory safe?
279.
by wtetzner 2y ago
> Also commonly known as reinventing the wheel, the curse of any IT project. Continuing with the vehicle metaphors, the wheel has been reinvented many times for different purposes. The wheel on a tractor is different from that of a Formu
280.
by wtetzner 2y ago
What do the version numbers of programs communicate to end users anyway? Basically just that it's newer than the last version. Libraries are a bit different though, because of semver compatibility, but unfortunately they are wrong ofte
281.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I think it's more acknowledging the gain in development efficiency you can get by working on something with lower fidelity.
282.
by wtetzner 2y ago
OCaml doesn't monomorphize functions. Instead references to every type are the same size (either a tagged int or a pointer). This is a sweet spot for OCaml, but doesn't really work for a language that doesn't allocate everyth
283.
by wtetzner 2y ago
The Dreamcast port requires a purchased copy of the game for the assets, so if anything I'd expect it to drive more sales.
284.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I think they called it Steam Deck to avoid confusion with their previous Steam Machines.
285.
by wtetzner 2y ago
> This cannot be modeled effectively in a static system. You can use a sum type, but that's just a greenspunned ad hoc dynamic type. This can easily be modeled in a static type system. All you really need is subtyping.
286.
by wtetzner 2y ago
> we’re back at square one of the information being possibly wrong. Isn't this the case with everything an LLM produces?
287.
by wtetzner 2y ago
> Most humans could not train to run under 4 minutes in a mile or under 2:30 in a marathon. Of course, but I don't think anyone was seriously suggesting that. The vast majority of humans can become pretty good at swimming though. An
288.
by wtetzner 2y ago
> I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. There's a reason most NBA players are over 2 meters tall, and one does not become taller with time, dedication nor focus. Being tall isn't a skill. I suspect you could be skillful enoug
289.
by wtetzner 2y ago
Maybe the legislation simply should have required DoNotTrack to be honored.
290.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I'd think anyone capable of installing an adblocker in Chrome would be able to install Firefox + an adblocker. Obviously it would be better if adblocking wasn't required in the first place.
291.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I actually prefer "writing assembly", and also think "writing assembler" is a bit confusing. But it feels like I'm several decades too late to complain about it ;)
292.
by wtetzner 2y ago
It seems to be pretty common even among native English speakers to use "writing assembler" and "writing assembly" interchangeably. If one were writing the tool that assembles to machine code, you'd say "writing
293.
by wtetzner 2y ago
Typically if you're saying that it's because someone else brought it up and you're letting them know you don't care.
294.
by wtetzner 2y ago
No, ORMs abstract away the relational database and present it as if it were some kind of object database. Needing to map query results to structs is just incidental, and is completely missing the point of an ORM. If copying query results to
295.
by wtetzner 2y ago
This is clearly not what anyone means when they say they don't want an ORM. An ORM library maps an entire relational database to a graph of objects, with the intention of abstracting away the relational database. Copying query results
296.
by wtetzner 2y ago
Reducing memory footprint is a big deal for using a VPS as well. Memory is still quite expensive when using cloud computing services.
297.
by wtetzner 2y ago
I have to agree, despite using it a lot, async is the worst part of Rust. If I had to do some of my projects over again, I'd probably just stick with synchronous Rust and thread pools. The concept of async isn't that bad, but it&#
298.
by wtetzner 2y ago
You can be pedantic if you like, but this is obviously not what anyone means by "ORM".
299.
by wtetzner 2y ago
No it doesn't. Why would relationships matter? You handle the relationships in SQL queries, and just copy query results to structs.
300.
by wtetzner 2y ago
There's a difference between mapping database tables to objects and just copying query results into structs.

More ›