bassislife

5 ms·

1.
by bassislife 10y ago
Adding to the list the very important Kanem-Bornou Empire and Bagirmi Kingdom.
2.
by bassislife 10y ago
I think it was humor :)
3.
by bassislife 10y ago
Yes, for instance, it's easy to create concurrent programs that are semantically wrong (in other words inadequate for use) albeit correct in terms of "types" because the coder made an erroneous assumption about determinism s
4.
by bassislife 10y ago
"unsafety" rather ? ;) decreasing non-safety is not the same as increasing safety. One starts with the assumption that things are safe. The other does not.
5.
by bassislife 10y ago
> A good type system (e.g Rust's, Haskell's..) can eliminate all type errors from your programs. It will eliminate errors related to the use of a given programming language. It will not necessarily avoid systemic errors. The pr
6.
by bassislife 10y ago
The issue with safety is that nothing is really safe. Once you have some level of safety in your programming language, you realize that there are still a lot of other sources of hazard (hardware errors, programming logic errors etc.) So I g
7.
by bassislife 10y ago
Your proposal only works if you don't need ABI-compatibility, especially relevant if the build process needs to be parallelizable. It all depends on what sense you provide to the terms: "minor version" and how you expect your
8.
by bassislife 10y ago
That's not different from having a bad leader ruling forever... That's torture. 1789 occured for a reason.
9.
by bassislife 10y ago
All these dictators in Africa ruling for (eternal) life ?!! What a nightmare !
10.
by bassislife 10y ago
> Treating different major versions as different packages For emphasis, because I think that's what should ideally happen.
11.
by bassislife 10y ago
If you are Seebeck, where are Peltier and Thomson? ;)
12.
by bassislife 10y ago
> they are all defined with fmt.Errorf No, an error implements the error interface. It means that it can be a value of any type that implements the constraint of having an Error method.
13.
by bassislife 10y ago
You can test the interface. A type is just an interface around memory, albeit more consrained.
14.
by bassislife 10y ago
It's problematic for dependency management. It's almost perfect but what would be better would be to be able to switch easily between different $GOPATH. One per project. We can already create multiple ones.
15.
by bassislife 10y ago
Release the Hounds.... The Hounds have been released. Go is released seems fine to me.
16.
by bassislife 10y ago
Anxiety is probably environment-induced. Kids are not necessarily so anxious.
17.
by bassislife 10y ago
In Go, each version corresponds to a given import/Pkg path. If you want to change version (major), you need to create a new package. The advantage is that you do not have to download a manifest such as package.json or whatever. It als
18.
by bassislife 10y ago
Which I guess is normal since it does not create any dependency cycle. A new version might as well be thought as a completely different package (of perhaps similar functionality).
19.
by bassislife 10y ago
If there is a market for the education you received, it should. If the job market conditions change, it might not unless the person is resourceful. Also note that the OP is talking about the US but education is often really the key for deve
20.
by bassislife 10y ago
A very nice explanation about what covariance and contravariance mean, especially in the context of subtyping (with potential parametric polymorphism). And implementation details are provided. An undergrad should be able to understand this.
21.
Covariance and Contravariance: a fresh look at an old issue [pdf](irif.univ-paris-diderot.fr)
62 points by bassislife 10y ago|26 comments
22.
by bassislife 10y ago
For category theory, I don't think so. But if we take tensor algebra, of course, in physics, especially quantum mechanics .The thing is, you could approach the same physical problem at different levels of abstraction and would therefor
23.
by bassislife 10y ago
> But maybe monads are too exotic to provide a good example. Nah, it's fine. But a monad is just a part of an abstraction. Which also means that they have been used without that specific denomination for ages. The use of Category th
24.
by bassislife 11y ago
Well maybe an example of something related to the game of Go written in Go should be planned in the future then. :)
25.
by bassislife 11y ago
so "=== gefahrlos" ?
26.
by bassislife 11y ago
less dangerous? or "not more" dangerous?
27.
by bassislife 11y ago
What if one simply says that a monad describes a pattern of morphisms composition ? Adjunctions being the plumbing ? (honest question, just trying to find a simple, grokkable definition)
28.
by bassislife 11y ago
I think the assumption is that the hardware spec is correctly implemented and that it runs ideally well. Otherwise that would require some kind of probabilistic model I guess. But you're right, "purity" is a simplification. C
29.
by bassislife 11y ago
> AFAIK struts+arrays in C# are the only construct I've seen or Go, especially with the value types. Now there is no automatic SoA/ AoS conversions but otherwise, you have full control over memory layout.
30.
by bassislife 11y ago
> shrug At least our language designers trusted our intelligence enough to implement generics. Trusted you so much that they even tripped on co/contravariance to add to the challenge :p

More ›