FwarkALark

5 ms·

1.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Why is this exposed to the user? If it isn't exposed to the user, what on earth are you talking about?
2.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Again, I don't see how a private industry per se could even possibly be worse given the demand for a profit margin. Your beef is with some other aspect of this process.
3.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
I mean, all industries? The profit margin guarantees this. Anyone who has worked in private industry will verify its utter incompetence in the long term.
4.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Again, this can't be worse than private industry—that profit margin will guarantee this. I guarantee there is some other disease to blame for the waste—probably politicians of some sort invested in industry. Of course, this does demand
5.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Is this something where a public competitor might help? It surely can't be worse than private industry.
6.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> At what point should an acquisition be allowed on the sake of something being able to continue to exist and possibly save jobs? Never? The entire point of private companies is that they take risk on themselves. If we have to bail them
7.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
...for the client tooling, or for the service? The service is understandable but the tooling makes no sense whatsoever.
8.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> If would likely take significant research effort to even figure out a way to incorporate the new discoveries into these engines. What? Have you ever used a solver before? The actual APIs exposed to the user are very simple interfaces t
9.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> By "variable" I mean a name with a value attached. I'd just use "symbol" then. Symbols don't have much utility without a referent. > Forth doesn't let you define these within procedures. "with
10.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
I don't think anyone uses a stackless fortran.
11.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> In ‘stack-based languages’ the stack is, most usually, an explicit semantic construct which acts as the only available value for procedures to act on. To the extent this is true, this is also true of all languages that anyone uses the
12.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Ok sure, but FORTRAN still uses a stack in any of its relevant forms.
13.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> But normal order evaluation with memoization (what human computer would do - write result only once) uses graphs and graph rewriting. ...which are still most simply implemented with a stack.
14.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> Conceptually, I would say other languages are variable-based. This seems less meaningful than "syntax-based" . Certainly, a "variable" is not a fundamental I deal with on a daily basis in c-based languages—there are
15.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Nothing.
16.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> In this case, ‘stack-based language’ is used as a term of art. This is a shitty and broken term. Hence my comment. > is a language which there’s a stack threaded through successive procedure calls, where access to the values on that
17.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> This seems like a great introduction to stack-based languages! Do you know of a language which is not based on stacks?
18.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
Is there a language which is not stack-based? I imagine "concatenative" would be mildly more precise of a description. Coroutines (which often carry their own stacks) can sort-of dodge stacks—effectively utilizing a sort of bespok
19.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
That's wonderful! Full endorsement of the support of rsync.net. I sincerely doubt most tools will be supported by most providers (by usage), however, and I question the evaluation of tools by this metric. Support is generally a fairly
20.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> What cloud storage provider officially supports this tool or the protocol used by it? Man I wish I lived in a universe where providers actually supported tooling. You're completely delusional tho.
21.
by FwarkALark 3y ago
> Rclone can also mount cloud storage to local disk It's not immediately apparent what this means—does it use FUSE, 9p, a driver, or some other mechanism to convert FS calls into API calls? EDIT: it's FUSE.