millstone

5 ms·

1.
by millstone 5y ago
I think it is simply that make is too crufty to extend. It has perma-broken behavior around space handling, which nobody dares touch [1]. But you can't replace it because it is entrenched, so Makefiles must be wrapped, by configure or
2.
by millstone 5y ago
What does "get it all" mean? All of what?
3.
by millstone 5y ago
What did you buy instead?
4.
by millstone 5y ago
Please tell us more.
5.
by millstone 5y ago
Pitch to a VP with "we will do a tiny trial of 1% of customers, if it doesn't work it's GONE, no harm done." Gets the greenlight, everyone who worked on it is invested and motivated to make the results look good, and it
6.
by millstone 5y ago
Can you say more? What happens if you try?
7.
by millstone 5y ago
Amazon ads are contrary to the company's mission statement of being the "most customer centric company." They could improve the customer experience at one stroke by eliminating pay-for-placement.
8.
by millstone 5y ago
What a sad vision. Per the article, the most important thing about software is that it is safe. The role of an OS is to protect against abuse. The web is inherently safe; therefore we should use web apps instead of native apps. This is prof
9.
by millstone 5y ago
It does not. -XOverloadedStrings unlocks `fromString :: String -> a.` That is not a polymorphic string interface; it's just syntax sugar for making something else from a string literal.
10.
by millstone 5y ago
Right. But OOP makes it central, and builds around it, while FP de-emphasizes it in preference to ADTs. Strings are a good illustration. Instead of an abstract polymorphic String type, Haskell provided a concrete String type as an ADT. This
11.
by millstone 5y ago
I agree with that. If you create accessors as a matter of course, then you are mostly adding dead weight. But accessors can add a useful layer of abstraction at the interface layer, as you say.
12.
by millstone 5y ago
OOP (as Alan Kay conceived it) was explicitly inspired by biology. Objects are cells and communicate through exchanging messages. State is local and hidden, and data itself disappears, which means that the program as written may be ignorant
13.
by millstone 5y ago
"Safety" and "performance" are not always the most important considerations. For example, Apple uses OOP so that its frameworks can evolve without breaking client apps. NSDictionary is a dynamic object because it permits
14.
by millstone 5y ago
getters, setters, and factories allow the implementation to evolve without breaking client code.
15.
by millstone 5y ago
The behavior is disabled in private browsing. That suggests some acknowledgement of a privacy risk. What is creepy here is that a random website which I closed ten minutes ago get to know when I unplug my ethernet cable. I am happy to tell
16.
by millstone 5y ago
Google could defuse some of the AMP pushback by offering users a setting to disable it. Why haven't they done so?
17.
by millstone 5y ago
Why do browser need to guess at autofill? Isn't it to everyone's advantage for forms to just tag their fields explicitly?
18.
by millstone 5y ago
> These should be compilable to a single asm routine, as long as there is an homogeneous way to copy them That's a massive asterisk. In practice, copying values to the heap is complicated. Integer values may be memcpyed. Pointer val
19.
by millstone 5y ago
Swift has tried to address this by making specialization an optimization. When it compiles a generic function, it emits a single boxed implementation, like Java. But the optimizer may also choose to specialize it for concrete types, like C+
20.
by millstone 6y ago
I don't understand why Apple is holding anyone back. Just build an app that doesn't work on iOS. There's lots of apps exclusive to iOS and Mac - why not exclusive Android? If the app really is a game changer, if it's tha
21.
by millstone 6y ago
Why? Text messages are great because they pop up on my Mac too.
22.
by millstone 6y ago
Is this about appearing to host YouTube from another domain? Free Google accounts can upload videos for free.
23.
by millstone 6y ago
You do have to use PhantomData, otherwise it won't compile: https://play.rust-lang.org/?gist=84883cb7cdd09acdcd919888cef... It's especially bad if your type is an enum, since there's no obvious place to put t
24.
by millstone 6y ago
Rust has lots of nonsense with zero practical benefit. Examples: PhantomData, higher-ranked trait bounds, "upstream crates may add a new impl". I have satisfied the compiler but no bugs were prevented. It's just busywork.
25.
by millstone 6y ago
I agree. In Rust I write correct code slowly. "Productive" I am not. But the great strengths of Rust, like memory and thread safety, are blunted in WASM, which is already memory-safe and thread-crippled. So Rust's success in
26.
by millstone 6y ago
Sorry but that's baloney. Web developers are not choosing Rust/WASM because of security concerns with C++/WASM. The whole point of WASM is to enable untrusted code. Instead I believe they are choosing Rust/WASM because o
27.
by millstone 6y ago
I don't get it - what library? I may have an `async` function and this is part of the Rust language, not tied to any library. Can I make it into a blocking function without 100% CPU?
28.
by millstone 6y ago
How do you find Rust to be so much more productive than C++? I find C++ more productive. In C++ I mainly fight with template error messages. In Rust, I fight with typechecked generics, inserting & and '_ here or there, adding and d
29.
by millstone 6y ago
Does spin-on-poll imply actual spinning (100% CPU) or actual blocking (waiting in a syscall)?
30.
by millstone 6y ago
I would not think to consider C# outside of Windows, but maybe I am wrong and should update my priors. Are there any C# programs that are regularly used ex-Windows? Something analogous to Docker (written in Go) or ripgrep (written in Rust)?

More ›