zenhack

19 ms·

121.
by zenhack 7y ago
One thing a lot of folks are missing is that this was not an isolated incident; the fact that this is the straw that broke the camel's back isnt' that important in the grand scheme of things. I made the same point in more detail i
122.
by zenhack 7y ago
Yeah, I really like that article; it articulates a part of the social dynamic that I just don't see talked about enough. But given the sheer scale of screwups here, the number of people's affected, while I have some sympathy for
123.
by zenhack 7y ago
The follow up to the original blog post includes a few quotes (they start in section 2): https://medium.com/@selamie/remove-richard-stallman-appendix...
124.
by zenhack 7y ago
Something that I think most folks in this thread are missing, that's hugely important to what actually happened here: This was not an isolated incident. If it were, I'd look at his comments and write it off as his usual tenden
125.
by zenhack 7y ago
I'll grant this, but an outsider perspective isn't the same thing as basic rejection of serious rigorous inquiry. Thomas Kuhn's work certainly argues that scientific consensus isn't as meritocratic as we would like, but
126.
by zenhack 7y ago
Your numbers are way off: * The US is still 70+% white: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit... * The number of undocumented immigrants is much lower than that: https://www.nytimes.
127.
by zenhack 7y ago
The SFC isn't a bunch of randos -- they handle the administrative end of things for a whole bunch of high profile foss projects: https://sfconservancy.org/projects/current/ Half of their staff has worked for
128.
by zenhack 7y ago
suggest reading: https://blog.golang.org/why-generics
129.
by zenhack 7y ago
Yeah, most "good" uses of this technique are kindof abusing it to substitue for some other feature the language doesn't have, the most common of which I can think of is combining it with type switches to get a poor-man's
130.
by zenhack 7y ago
I don't think a file sync tool that happens to be written in OCaml qualifies as FP research.
131.
by zenhack 7y ago
It's not; it's incredibly alpha quality. Like, I'm working on a parser combinators library and step 1 was "add characters to the compiler."
132.
by zenhack 8y ago
(standard IANAL disclaimers) 1. yeah, probably. 2. There's a comment elsewhere in the thread to this effect, but short-term logging for the usual purposes of managing stability/security of a system almost certainly qualifies as le
133.
by zenhack 8y ago
Good point. In this case, the bug is in cool-framework, and I don't know that I see a great solution, regardless of the expressiveness of the constraint system. Ultimately I don't think there's a way to rule that out short of
134.
by zenhack 8y ago
I think a pretty good spot in the design space would be to respect specified incompatibilities with specific versions, but not ranges. Maybe even require a comment attached to the incompatibility constraint, which would explain the problem.
135.
by zenhack 8y ago
> at this point a perspective that it seems you clearly recognize is wrongheaded, but wish to defend anyway. I don't appreciate the accusation. At this point your own position is baffling to me as well, but I'm not going to mak
136.
by zenhack 8y ago
> But its also possible to implement a statically typed language within a dynamically typed one. Not as a simple set of library functions that you import. You need to actually write an offline tool, because if the checking is done by lib
137.
by zenhack 8y ago
We seem to have hit some upper limit on the nesting depth in a thread on hackernews; there's no reply button for me on your latest comment[0] so I'm replying here. This seems to be the crux of the disagreement: > Except that st
138.
by zenhack 8y ago
When you talk about "Strong types," what actually constitutes a type in this terminology? Re: the semantic difference, my point is that whatever the semantics of this multiply are, it's not really "part of the language&q
139.
by zenhack 8y ago
> I suppose there is a difference between a language with a weakly typed core (where you cannot avoid the risks of weak typing without isolating the core), one with a strongly typed core that doesn't force user code to be strongly t
140.
by zenhack 8y ago
> This doesn't look that different, but it absolutely is hugely different than the example you provide. The salient point about the example I provided was that it's implemented in Python -- I appreciate the correction regarding
141.
by zenhack 8y ago
The key thing I'm arguing is that + * / etc. aren't special, beside some very superficial syntactic support. Your description of python's ` ` basically boils down to: def multiply(l, r): if hasattr(l, &#x27
142.
by zenhack 8y ago
You can definitely rig up the erasure to happen in a destructor (C++) or Drop implementation (Rust). Convincing the compiler not to optimize it out is tricky, but many cryptographic libraries include that functionality. The c11 standard has
143.
by zenhack 8y ago
> Object.prototype.valueOf = function() { throw "I will not be coerced!" } > 4 + {} Thrown: I will not be coerced! This doesn't seem fundamentally different from overriding getattr. What you've go
144.
by zenhack 8y ago
I am interpreting the term "library" somewhat broadly -- my notion is that int isn't conceptually any more core to the language than e.g. the numpy matrix classes. It's built-in for speed, but (apart from some syntactic
145.
by zenhack 8y ago
There's nothing stopping the implementation from doing that, if the authors of the stdlib thought it made sense: def __add__(self, other): if isinstance(other, str): return str(self) + other ... Aga
146.
by zenhack 8y ago
Reason/ocaml-bucklescript's js interop is actually very good -- it's one of the nicest FFIs I've ever seen.
147.
by zenhack 8y ago
You only get an exception if and when something in the bowels of your implementation bangs into a low-level operation that has one of these checks in it. For example: >>> import subprocess >>> subprocess.call([2]
148.
by zenhack 8y ago
"getting the two confused" implies that your terminology is standard, which it isn't. It is also quite common to use the term "type" to refer exclusively to properties that are checked statically. Arguably "str
149.
by zenhack 8y ago
The standard answer under US law is the jury; the concern you raise is deeply embedded in our legal system.
150.
by zenhack 8y ago
Without being able to see what research they actually did/scruitinize their methodology, I don't find the claim that they checked very compelling. Humans are crazy-hard to study -- research that's not even peer reviewed is ba

More ›