zephen

46 ms·

451.
by zephen 10mo ago
Even if the LLM theoretically supported this, it's a big leap of faith to assume that all models on all their CPUs are always perfectly synced up, that there are never any silently slipstreamed fixes because someone figured out how to
452.
by zephen 10mo ago
Upvoted for: > which shouldn't be necessary unless you're pushing the limits of its rise/fall times Right, I should have clarified this. To make them go fast, you can often use more power (to a point), and that can shorte
453.
by zephen 10mo ago
If galvanic isolation is necessary, there are "digital isolators" (that's a good search term if you are interested) that are much faster than optocouplers and that don't suffer from the same sort of degradation (over a f
454.
by zephen 10mo ago
He has expressed admiration for lisp, and he comes from a time before IDEs. These may color his desired level of complexity.
455.
by zephen 10mo ago
Mentally discarding a name still takes some amount of effort, even if local. I often write things the way you have done it, for the simple reason that, when writing the code, maybe I feel that I might have more than one use for the constant
456.
by zephen 10mo ago
> The "what" vs "why" distinction breaks down when your code encodes domain knowledge that readers can't infer from context. Yes, there are multiples levels of knowledge, and the required level of commenting depe
457.
by zephen 10mo ago
There are five canonical questions: What, When, Where, Why, and How. "When" is occasionally a good question to answer in a comment, e.g. for an interrupt handler, and "Where" is also occasionally a good thing to answer,
458.
by zephen 10mo ago
Oh, I understand it. I just think that (a) explicit is better than implicit; and (b) the amount of characters that Python requires to keep imports explicit is truly minimal, and is a huge aid to figuring out where things came from.
459.
by zephen 10mo ago
I think you are overcomplicating this. This is exactly the syntax Python uses, and there is no "search" per se. Either an identifier is in the current namespace or not. And if it is in the current namespace, there can only be one.
460.
by zephen 10mo ago
I have never found either (1) or (2) to be a problem in hundreds of thousands of lines of Python. > In particular, C3's "path shortening" ... we'd have to pay by actually writing `std.io.file.open("foo.txt"
461.
by zephen 10mo ago
> anything that adds to readability is therefore a win. Right, the entire question is whether '::' ever adds to readability. For me, it's a huge negative. Obviously, YMMV.
462.
by zephen 10mo ago
> Namespaces to me are more about naming conflict resolution and code readability, and I think of them more as prefixes to namespace member names, as opposed to those member names being part of a hierarchy. That's a perspective. Ar
463.
by zephen 10mo ago
As I get older, I realize that everybody's sweet spot is a little different. Lisp and APL both have their adherents. I personally find a bit more syntax than lisp to be nice. Occasionally I long for the homoiconicity of lisp; otoh, ma
464.
by zephen 10mo ago
" the C-like for programmers who like C." Sounds intriguing. But then, the first thing I noticed in their example is a double-colon scope operator. I understand that it's part of the culture (and Rust, C#, and many other lan
465.
by zephen 10mo ago
That may be the intent, but if the semantics of passing parameters is different, how will that work when it comes to customer testimonials?
466.
by zephen 10mo ago
Laziness might or might not be involved in either path. A stupid developer might not even contemplate that something could happen. A smarter developer might contemplate that possibility, but discount it, by adding the path and comment. Why
467.
by zephen 10mo ago
> I never cared for Dijkstra's arguments on the matter. It resonates with me, as does little-endian. There are evergreen arguments about both of these, but they stand out to me as two of the few places where I appear to be in sync
468.
by zephen 10mo ago
> While they are frequently ignored And this is the reason I spent most of the latter part of my career in chip companies. Because tapeouts are _expensive_, both in dollar cost, and in lost opportunity cost if the chip comes back broken.
469.
by zephen 10mo ago
> "Zero cost abstractions" refers to some features of the language that provide functionalities with no runtime cost... In that case, all languages provide zero cost abstractions. > programming with a high level of control o
470.
by zephen 10mo ago
I dunno. This sort of thing gives me pause: https://danluu.com/julialang/ But the first thing that gave me pause about Julia? They sort of pivoted to say "we're general purpose" but the whole index-sta
471.
by zephen 10mo ago
Personally, I've never been interested in being a character in someone else's story. But now you've got me thinking. Has anyone studied whether the programmers who are more enamored of AI are also into RPGs?
472.
by zephen 10mo ago
No, no, no. We need to have a scrum with 3 agents each from the top 4 AI vendors, with each agent adhering to instructions given by a different programmer. It's kind of like Robot Wars, except the damage is less physical and more costl
473.
by zephen 10mo ago
Obviously people perceive value there, but on the surface it does seem odd. "These things are more destructive than your average toddler, so you need to have a fence in place kind of like that one in Jurassic Park, except you need to m
474.
by zephen 10mo ago
There has always been a laissez-faire subset of programmers who thrive on living in the debugger, getting occasional dopamine hits every time they remove any footgun they previously placed. I cannot count the times that I've had essent
475.
by zephen 10mo ago
73.24% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
476.
by zephen 10mo ago
Lattner is a smart guy, but I think Mojo might be the wrong direction. Time will tell. History has not so far been kind to projects which attempt to supplant cPython, whether they are other Python variants such as PyPy, or other languages s
477.
by zephen 10mo ago
> entirely useless for a human mind. You may be right, although, of course, current LLMs often do the right thing with "about 3/5ths of the way." OTOH, as someone who has done CAD and schematic drawings by programming, I a
478.
by zephen 10mo ago
> 2. Your software needs to be distributed with a license that is compatible with your dependencies. You can't add restrictions if your dependencies forbid that. This is certainly what the FSF wants you to believe, but if you'r
479.
by zephen 10mo ago
Maybe; I'm not even going to bother parsing all that tonight. OTOH, if I create software and publish it on gitlab, and I'm not a github user, and someone else copies it to github, that doesn't scrub my license off or give git
480.
by zephen 10mo ago
> No, it's not the exact same external library. It uses the exact same assembly language. > There's an additional Rust library in between that they used, which provides the `FFISafe` type, and that has overhead. Look, I wrot

More ›