grumpyprole

7 ms·

1.
by grumpyprole 23d ago
And to read rumour sites about the next model.
2.
by grumpyprole 4mo ago
VSCode is pretty much this. But with typescript instead of Guile. After 30 years of Emacs, I switched .
3.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
Yes, the belief that markets self regulate, was proved incorrect by the 2008 financial crisis.
4.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
Not always. There's no Minecraft for Mac, they even prohibited Macs running the iPad version. It's essentially been ported to Apples APIs but purposely withheld from macOS.
5.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
Both :)
6.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
Yes, it will also have 5 mins of battery life when unplugged and have a power adapter the size of a shoe box. I tried a similar machine from Lenovo at work and quickly returned it.
7.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
That's absolutely insane.
8.
by grumpyprole 6mo ago
Does this really test Claude in a useful way? Is building a highly derivative programming language a useful use case? Claude has probably indexed all existing implementations of imperative dynamic languages and is basically spewing slop bas
9.
by grumpyprole 8mo ago
I certainly don't mean to knock nominal types. But I think structural types are more fundamental. A language would only need a single "newtype" or "nominal" keyword to create nominal types from structural types.
10.
by grumpyprole 8mo ago
Most languages have poor support for structural types though. If you try and join two records together (like a SQL join), what will your favourite language infer then?
11.
by grumpyprole 8mo ago
What you are describing is structural types. It is indeed a mystery that these are so under used, especially as they are a cornerstone of type theory. Structural types are so useful that they creep into most languages in some way. Even in J
12.
by grumpyprole 9mo ago
It's overblown until it isn't. Hoare didn't pluck that number from thin air. This is now a solved problem in modern programming languages. If Odin doesn't have this and other essential memory safety features, it's c
13.
by grumpyprole 9mo ago
Yes it's the burden of proof. That's why writing Rust is harder than C++. Or why Python is easier than anything else. As a user and customer, I'd rather pay more for reliable software though.
14.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
Less of the personal attacks please, you know nothing about me. I actually think it is you that is missing context here. Don Syme personally visited and presented at a variety of investment banks. He was the creator not a marketing type. I
15.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
F# was pitched by Microsoft to be used in areas where Python dominates, especially for scripting in the finance domain and "rapid application development". So it doesn't make sense at all that C# and Java are a "better c
16.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
Haskell. But there are other examples of "pure functional programming". And the state of the art is dependently typed languages, which are essentially theorem provers but can be used to extract working code.
17.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
It absolutely does make sense to compare it to the worlds most popular programming language, especially when dismissed as "functional programming". Who benefits from an OCaml comparison? You think F# should be marketed to OCaml us
18.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
Both OCaml and Clojure are principled and well designed languages, but they are mostly evolutions of Lisp and ML from the 70s. That's not where functional programming is today. Both encourage a functional style, which is good. And mayb
19.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
I'd much rather code F# than Python, it's more principled, at least at the small scale. But F# is in many ways closer to modern mainstream languages than a modern pure functional language. There's nothing scary about it. You
20.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
It all depends on the lens one chooses to view them. None of them are really "functional programming" in the truly modern sense, even F#. As more and more mainstream languages get pattern matching and algebraic data types (such as
21.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
F# is hardly modern functional programming. It's more like a better python with types. And that's much more ergonomic than C#.
22.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
Arrays have a static fixed size though, making them far less useful in practice. Anything one builds with generics is boxed. Dotnet doesn't have this problem.
23.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
The JVM famously boxes everything though, probably because it was originally designed to run a dynamic language. An array list of floats is an array list of pointers. This created an entire cottage industry of alternative collections librar
24.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
> C# is, imo, the best cross platform GC language. I really can't think of anything that comes close How about F#? Isn't F# mostly C# with better ergonomics?
25.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
In hindsight, I think your description is indeed better!
26.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
No it's not pleasant at all. It's boilerplate heavy, non-local and indirect. It's presumably a large part of why pattern matching is arriving in Python.
27.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
True, but then concurrency via algebraic effects makes it look more modern than Rust.
28.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
The vast majority of which unfortunately still come with Intel processors, especially the premium models. I handed my work issued Lenovo X1 back to my employer as being unusable due to overheating and excessive thermal throttling. The M4 Ma
29.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
Sure it did ok with examples that are easily found in a text book like drawing a circle.
30.
by grumpyprole 1y ago
I would argue that not sanitising strings is analogous to a form of memory unsafety. You take as an input, an opaque blob of bytes that you then pass on to a myriad of other libraries and pieces of code. Nothing is captured in the types oth

More ›