LessDmesg

7 ms·

121.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
No, because these languages aren't broken and don't need a new ECMAscript standard every year (none of which can fix JS anyway because it's fundamentally wrong and unfixable). Other languages don't have a bunch of busybo
122.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Yes, the names are important for "interop" reasons and yes, historically they mattered because the temperament was different and C# was totally different from Db. And yes, not all modern music is based on the 12-note equal temp. B
123.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Here's how I approach it: forget about all the historic naming like "perfect fifths" and just think in terms of the modern 12-note equal temperament. Every note is a number, e.g. 440 Herz = 69, the standard guitar tuning has
124.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
This is hard to believe, as in this thread and everywhere, the only software used to tout Forth is low-level stuff. Even if Forth was able to be squeezed into a high-level language, it doesn't seem to have any advantage, or, in fact an
125.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
This can work, but it's incredibly tedious and not worth the trouble. Writing in Forth is like writing in pure CIL or JVM bytecode (they're both stack machines like Forth). Sure, you can do it, but if it was so rewarding, people w
126.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Curious: what kind of new control structures do you miss in other languages?
127.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
I'd like that too, but it's not going to work with the web dev populace. They're used to a dynamically-typed sandbox and won't switch to a full statically typed language.
128.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
For one thing, not being broken. Python doesn't have ("1"+1) and similar design flaws, Python doesn't need a new ECMAscript standard every year, Python has figured out modules and classes much earlier, and frankly, Pytho
129.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
What would you prefer then, Lua, with its 1-based arrays? Python is a mature, universal, versatile, insanely popular dynamic language with a nice syntax. It fits the bill perfectly.
130.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Now if only we get a good web-oriented Python with a WASM backend, we'll finally be able to throw Javascript where it belongs: into the dustbin of history.
131.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Sberbank is also behind recent Nginx extortion raids.
132.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Interesting. Could you give an example of such a memory lifetime bug in C# and why C++ is impervious to it?
133.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
...which is manual work with no guarantees of correctness.
134.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Reference counting is not better, it's a poor man's GC. Reference counting means: 1) instruction pollution from all the refcount updates and their synchronization 2) circular references, ie memory leaks 3) too much time spent free
135.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Energy is the ability to perform work. It doesn't have to be a velocity. A boulder on the hillside is energetic because it can fall down, thereby performing work on whatever it falls on.
136.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Restoring the full sequence is going to be like putting together a paper book that's been through a shredder. And if you're thinking about cloning a dinosaur, that's even harder because you'd need to recreate exactly the
137.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Saved! Nice book.
138.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Birds are dinosaurs, the only surviving clade of them. You don't have to watch Jurassic Park to see a living dinosaur, just look at a pigeon or crow!
139.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Nope, the anthropic principle does not imply that probability is 1. It's not even really a principle, just a post-factum observation. There may have been no one on Earth to write this stuff on a smartphone, ever. There might have even
140.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Agreed. Birds have an inheren limit on head weight, which limits their brain size. They do manage to use what they have quite well (parrots are also remarkable in that regard), but the limit is there. Ultimately intelligence is a tough nut
141.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
I know about CLOS, multi-methods, the meta-object protocol. It's a nice, dynamic OOP system (though I'm not a fan of dynamic languages). The thing is, CLOS isn't Lisp-specific: it can easily be recreated in a language with a
142.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
I've done it, now I hate Lisp. I've read On Lisp and Let Over Lambda , I've used Clojure in production, and I still hate Lisp, any and all of them. What am I doing wrong? Perhaps it's that reading code is more importa
143.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
It's not meant to be portable. It's just that C is a low-level, weakly-typed language where everything is bytes and bits, and every pointer may be null at any moment. Disregarding type-safety is OK for C, so it's handy to con
144.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
malloc() isn't O(1), but allocations in a normal GC are O(1).
145.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
It's not so hard as it is hard to read because of the formalism. Instead of introducing lambda calculus and the fraction-like thingies with Greek letters, CS scientists should just use Python and write an implementation on the fly.
146.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Because it's too heavy on the "fight the compiler" security stuff. Rust is well-designed all around, but no fun to program in.
147.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
I started reading but stopped when I saw "succ n" and "prev n". Unary numbers are so academic and disconnected from reality that I lose interest in any paper that uses them. Lambda calculus makes me yawn too. Guess I&#x2
148.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
You must be trolling... Templates in C++ ARE for metarogramming. The fact that they work as a glorified text substitution (and they are only coming around to fix them in 2020) leaves no apology for the tool.
149.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Just a few days ago I've read accounts of C++ projects compiling for hours because C++ has a buggy compilation process, e.g. it copies and pastes every header everywhere instead of only one copy. Don't blame developers for obvious
150.
by LessDmesg 7y ago
Because C++ is one of the most complex languages in the world, hence a pain to interop with. C FFIs, on the other hand, are ubiquitous.

More ›