zephen

33 ms·

481.
by zephen 10mo ago
The extra time was being taken up in the identical assembly language function. Fixing it took wizardry.
482.
by zephen 10mo ago
> someone writing a library with a costly abstraction That's not what happened here. > it's not like C++ doesn't have some costly abstractions This is simultaneously both completely orthogonal to my observation that the
483.
by zephen 10mo ago
> I've never understood that to mean that every possible abstraction would be zero cost, but that the language itself provides abstractions that are zero cost. To me, "zero cost abstractions" means that you should use the
484.
by zephen 10mo ago
Sure, but languages and the problems we solve with them are both multifaceted, so simply pointing to one tool and saying "this is better than the one you have in your toolbox" is fine, but the plural in "zero cost abstraction
485.
by zephen 10mo ago
This is all well and good, but "zero cost abstractions" implies, well, that you're crawling _up_ the abstraction pyramid, not lost in twisty little side passages.
486.
by zephen 10mo ago
Maybe? To the extent that that could work, I would imagine that I, personally, would be happy reading the textual description instead of watching the video, and for me, we'd now be even closer to text wins 100% of the time. In other w
487.
by zephen 10mo ago
The second paper shown above is firewalled. The first paper shown above was presented at ICPC, which has a history of bias in reviewing, and typically only assigns one or two reviewers in any case. Which makes it not surprising that the pap
488.
by zephen 10mo ago
If you're going to start citing research, you should look at the Cooley finding on verilog vs VHDL.
489.
by zephen 10mo ago
> The best argument for dynamic types systems, is enjoying debugging in production. This comment is either severe snark or severe ignorance.
490.
by zephen 10mo ago
Sorry, and thanks. I know moderation is a tough gig.
491.
by zephen 10mo ago
I agree 99%. The 1% where something else is better? Youtube videos that show you how to access hidden fasteners on things you want to take apart. Not that I can't get absolutely anything open, but sometimes it's nice to be able to
492.
by zephen 10mo ago
^^^ Poe's Law may or may not apply to the above comment.
493.
by zephen 10mo ago
The problem is that popularity is governed by power laws. Literally anybody could forsee that, _if_ something scales to millions of users, there will be issues. Some of the people who forsee that could even fix it. But they might spend th
494.
by zephen 10mo ago
Not at all. When you fuck around optimizing prematurely, you find out that you're too late and nobody cares. Oh, well, optimization is always fun, so there's that.
495.
by zephen 10mo ago
Not only this, but (if I understand the article correctly) at least some of them still use git on the backend.
496.
by zephen 10mo ago
And a lot of the rationale is very weak tea. For example, don't assign a lambda to an identifier, because a function will show up in a stack trace. But it's OK to use the lambda directly. (huh. What happened to the necessity for
497.
by zephen 10mo ago
[flagged]
498.
by zephen 10mo ago
[flagged]
499.
by zephen 10mo ago
> I guess it is fair for pioneers of the past to feel little left behind. I'm sure he doesn't. > The value proposition of software engineering is completely different past later half of 2025 I'm sure it's not. >
500.
by zephen 10mo ago
Upvoted for the explanation, but... In what universe is another unsolicited email an act of kindness??!?
501.
by zephen 10mo ago
Most of the rules in that list are certainly things you would be better off following than not. But some of them aren't, and many of the ones that are valid are simple programming errors that will be caught as soon as you run any data
502.
by zephen 10mo ago
I really don't understand why this was downvoted. It expresses something that is true for many individuals.
503.
by zephen 10mo ago
Perhaps a corollary to Greenspun's Tenth rule? "Any sufficiently complicated database program contains an ad-hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of COBOL."
504.
by zephen 10mo ago
Technically everything you have written is true. But the proliferation of frameworks is almost a self-reinforcing antipattern. > No one likes lawyers because they block you from doing what you want. Or even doing what you need to do. Ce
505.
by zephen 10mo ago
That makes some sense, except you're mostly describing a division of labor where the people relying on you to fix their environments probably could do it themselves if you weren't around. I think we agree these are not typical end
506.
by zephen 10mo ago
> All that case settled is that AI cannot hold a copyright. Not at all. Thaler wasn't asking that the AI hold the copyright. He wanted to hold the copyright of a work _authored_ by a machine. But a machine cannot be an author, und
507.
by zephen 10mo ago
> And I don’t care if it’s boring, it has to be available. Strong language, strong nope. Demand to see shit I didn't even think was important when I was busy building stuff? Sucks to be you.
508.
by zephen 10mo ago
That's probably true, but there are a few reasons for it: - Face it, decorator syntax is kinda ugly - History. Decorator syntax is new - For things which will be repeatedly subclassed, the metaclass automagically tags along But it&#x2
509.
by zephen 10mo ago
To be fair, it is my understanding that PHP is still king in the niche of "simple language with practically zero cost to spin up and deal with a web request." Now it _may_ be that the erroneously named "serverless" archi
510.
by zephen 10mo ago
> Ruby could have won, Seems unlikely. Its got its own fair share of Perl-inspired quirks.

More ›