aurelius

6 ms·

1.
by aurelius 3y ago
None of them. Study Knuth. Study the Intel manuals. Study “The Art of Multiprocessor Programming”. Study compilers. Study TCP/IP. Study algorithms and data structures. Write lots of code for all of those things. Disregard the noise. Ba
2.
by aurelius 5y ago
I'd like to give you some advice based on my own experience, and without making too many assumptions about you and what you haven't told us about your situation. I absolutely believe there is a way for you to get through this. Don
3.
by aurelius 6y ago
A good manager should.
4.
by aurelius 9y ago
How ironic is it that the Haskell Research Compiler is written in Standard ML, and not Haskell? Joking aside, SML is a great language, and often overlooked, so this is good to see!
5.
by aurelius 12y ago
1994-1998 was a bad time for C++. Stepanov had just come along with the STL idea, and there were various competing implementations of it. And I don't think I need to say anything more about the travesty of MFC other than to acknowledge
6.
by aurelius 12y ago
What comments in support of the NSA? Any comments in support of the NSA here are IMMEDIATELY flag-killed by the HN Nazis who love to suppress any kind of free speech they don't agree with.
7.
by aurelius 12y ago
I know someone who used to work at an algorithm trading firm and did electronic market making. He said they used to go to great lengths to program their algorithms to try to spot this sort of manipulation, but it's a hard problem becau
8.
by aurelius 12y ago
Algorithmic trading is intrinsically neither good nor bad. It's kind of just a natural progression in the markets once easily programmable computers and high-speed networks came along. How algorithmic trading is used, however, is anoth
9.
by aurelius 12y ago
I think you've taken a pretty narrow interpretation of "reliable software". It seems more reasonable to think that Bjarne was speaking at a general level, i.e., the idea that software written in non-garbage collected language
10.
by aurelius 12y ago
Jarvis from Iron Man, or KITT from Knight Rider.
11.
by aurelius 12y ago
Neural networks are impressive only in that they are able to give any kind of meaningful results at all. In the end, they are only a poor mimicry of real machine intelligence, and not much better, conceptually, than plain old nonlinear regr
12.
by aurelius 12y ago
I think your views on the GPL are spot on. At least we can agree on that.
13.
by aurelius 12y ago
> So, the reasons for not using "SBCL" have nothing to do with "good enough". It's simply about "not mine". Kaz, the C programming language isn't yours either. My point is that Common Lisp is suppo
14.
by aurelius 12y ago
> > why didn't Kaz use SBCL or CLISP? > Why should he? Kaz invested a bunch of time implementing a whole new backquote implementation for CLISP, but it's still not good enough for him to use CLISP to implement TXR? It doe
15.
by aurelius 12y ago
Every single Python project you stated simply proves my point. They are Python compilers of some sort. TXR, on the other hand, is a data processing language implemented in its own lisp which is implemented in C. In other words, TXR is an ap
16.
by aurelius 12y ago
> Because some random guys implement their own language in C? Why do we have Python, Ruby, Rebol? There was already PERL or AWK or ... Somebody decided to write their own scripting language. So what? When a Python advocate wants to do so
17.
by aurelius 12y ago
The point is that lisp advocates rarely seem to use any of these lisp implementations to do anything noteworthy or useful. They always seem to fall back on C, or some other language that's more "widely available" or "has
18.
by aurelius 12y ago
I don't buy it. TXR is not built "on its own Lisp", it's built on C. If you believe that lisp is so great, then why didn't you just use ANSI Common Lisp? Why is TXR even necessary when I can do all the same data pro
19.
by aurelius 12y ago
Kaz Kylheku is one of the kooks from comp.lang.lisp where lisp is the One True Language. The funny thing is that TXR is written in C! Kaz: How come you didn't write TXR in lisp?
20.
by aurelius 12y ago
What an offensive, restrictive, and anti-free software license! Too bad - this might have otherwise been a useful piece of software. The current license renders it toxic.
21.
by aurelius 12y ago
That's right. In all of history, the single most civilizing influence on the world has been the Catholic Church. Even with all the abuses and excesses, I don't think this can reasonably be denied.
22.
by aurelius 12y ago
Oh, look! Another Hacker News pedant come to pick meaningless holes in someone's comment. I didn't say I was an expert on parenting. Did I? Did I also say that teenagers are always and everywhere uncivilized savages? No. I made on
23.
by aurelius 12y ago
By definition, they are uncivilized savages. They are born not knowing how to behave in a civilized way. They also act like it too, from time to time. Note that I explicitly and carefully said: "Unreasonable savagery can not be made ci
24.
by aurelius 12y ago
I don't trust unreasonable savages. Neither should you.
25.
by aurelius 12y ago
I don't think you or jpfielding have any real experience raising kids. That's pretty clear from your smug assumption that children are reasonable people who will see the error of their ways if only their parents took the time to e
26.
by aurelius 12y ago
Well, it sounds like it's time for someone to put on his big boy pants! Congratulations, son! Yes, real-world software projects that make money for a business (and pay you a salary) are larger than one man can handle. There's a lo
27.
by aurelius 12y ago
It was foolish because I worked at a large company, and team leads were basically impotent eunuchs who ran errands for the higher ups. I also worked in a department that had pathological ideas on how long developers ought to work (including
28.
by aurelius 12y ago
I was in a similar situation once. Here's the algorithm I came up with to get myself out: 1. Figure out what you want to do. This is the most important step. You currently have a job, so you have time to really think about this and f
29.
by aurelius 12y ago
Yes, that is <i>another</i> issue with model checkers. Either way, your original comment is still nonsense.
30.
by aurelius 12y ago
If you have used a model checker, you probably don't have a proof either. You have a model that might not be accurate, and testing all its inputs may be combinatorially prohibitive.

More ›