jblow

9 ms·

1.
by jblow 4y ago
Computers at that time were already pretty okay. Doom is from several years before this. What you should instead be wondering is why so much stuff today fails to display even this level of interactivity.
2.
by jblow 4y ago
[Context: I run a video game development studio.] Whenever I interview people I explicitly make a section of the interview where I answer the candidate's questions, just in case it doesn't come up naturally or the candidate is a b
3.
by jblow 5y ago
> if you aren't precise to the millisecond things will jump around It is correct that precision is very important here, but, a millisecond is way too coarse: at 120fps, a millisecond is 1/8 of the frame time, and you'd get
4.
by jblow 5y ago
If you can’t reverse a binary tree, or don’t even know how to approach the problem, you can’t do most of programming. Fixing this should be a high priority, but the author seems to have no awareness of this. Programming is hard. It takes a
5.
by jblow 6y ago
(And I will admit here that "Rust doesn't allow you to X", as I said originally, is not an accurate statement objectively. Attempting to rephrase that objection to be better, I would say, by the time you are doing all this st
6.
by jblow 6y ago
> they ensure that the pointers don't last longer than the arena lives. That's it. Sure, but my point is, when most things have lifetimes tied to the same arena, this becomes a almost a no-op. Both in the sense of, you are not
7.
by jblow 6y ago
> rather than sweeping, incorrect statements that lead people to believe things that aren't true I agree, and if I say things that are incorrect, then I definitely want to fix them, because I value being correct. But what I am meeti
8.
by jblow 6y ago
> that lets the compiler apply its memory safety checks to all the places that call it My point is that those memory safety checks are now meaningless. > This is still a meaningful improvement to memory safety over C. No, it really is
9.
by jblow 6y ago
Okay, but if I do this everywhere, then I de facto don't have memory safety. Why, then should I use Rust and pretend like I am getting memory safety? Why wouldn't I use a lower-friction language with a faster compiler? It looks to
10.
by jblow 6y ago
I'll try to further bridge some of the understanding gap. People in this thread keep talking about "arena allocators" as if they are special things that you would use a few times (Grep Guy said this above, for example), or, h
11.
by jblow 6y ago
I am talking about RAII. RAII leads to programs that are inherently slow.
12.
by jblow 6y ago
I guess I am confused by the question. The job of the borrow checker is to constrain what you are allowed to do, and it's well-understood that it constrains you to a subset of correct programs, so that you stay in a realm that is analy
13.
by jblow 6y ago
> They're not a runtime construct, they have zero influence over what code does at run time (e.g. mrustc compiler doesn't implement lifetimes, but bootstraps the whole Rust compiler just fine). This kind of reasoning seems like
14.
by jblow 6y ago
If you do not understand that "embarrassingly parallel" is a technical term and that it's generally understood that most programs are not easily parallelizable, there is not a discussion we can have here.
15.
by jblow 6y ago
Bulk operations are not really about layout, they are about whether you mentally consider each little data structure to be an individual entity with its own lifetime, or not, because this determines what the code looks like, which determine
16.
by jblow 6y ago
> This alone, to me, says "to a first approximation, the speed of your program in 2021 is determined by the number of cores it uses" would be better than your statement. But I wouldn't even say that. You chose an embarrass
17.
by jblow 6y ago
Sure, but you are still going to be constrained greatly in terms of what those allocators are able to do, are you not?
18.
by jblow 6y ago
This entire article is nonsense. To a first approximation, the speed of your program in 2021 is determined by locality of memory access and overhead with regard to allocation and deallocation. C allows you to do bulk memory operations, Rust
19.
by jblow 6y ago
Hi, When I saw this announcement I was hoping that I could finally buy a laptop with a good trackpad, with buttons, and a good keyboard again. But looking at the announcement, it seems like trackpad and keyboard quality are far from anyone&
20.
by jblow 6y ago
Okay, but ... what is being gained here? The ability to package programs so they run on a computer without you worrying about it? That is an ability we had since the 1960s, that people gave up for "reasons" that are questionable a
21.
by jblow 6y ago
I have heard this story multiple times. But if it's true, then why are roads pretty much the same, as concerns walking vs driving, wherever you go in the world? If things would have naturally been different if only it weren't for
22.
by jblow 6y ago
We went through all this BS, then signed up with them on a year contract. Then we were shocked to find that it would take them two weeks to set up our first machine. I noped out of it at that point and just paid the penalty to get the
23.
by jblow 6y ago
He would be able to see a circle the same way you can see a sphere. Do you feel like you can only see discs, not spheres?
24.
by jblow 6y ago
This is right. The OP said he is "disillusioned with technology" but I didn't see actual technology being described as the problem with any point. So there's a conflation here happening between technology and "tech&
25.
by jblow 6y ago
Article is terrible. First, these are short-term loans, with forgiveness being discussed for small businesses (not for Wall Street). Second, there is money going out to individuals, so the "you don't" part of the title is B
26.
by jblow 7y ago
It's a technical term.
27.
by jblow 7y ago
You are doing exactly the thing pg talks about in this essay -- making up a fictional version of what the other person said so that you can argue with it.
28.
by jblow 7y ago
Obviously, but then the answer is, why? What the hell is our problem? Even if you think shell scripting is a good idea (which I don’t), just fix all the obviously dumb toxic stuff like this and put out a shell that is minimally different wi
29.
by jblow 7y ago
Toxic waste sites were ubiquitous too, but we put in the effort to clean them up.
30.
by jblow 7y ago
Why are we still using this in 2020?

More ›