serichsen

6 ms·

1.
by serichsen 8y ago
Integer division: I think the best thing to do is to produce an exact rational, like Clojure that was mentioned, and most Lisps, where it got that from.
2.
by serichsen 8y ago
Lisps do NOT do textual inclusion. Lisp systems are created from code, not text. I guess that the author only saw the use of `use-package' or the `:use' option of `defpackage', but this is not necessary (and not generally us
3.
by serichsen 8y ago
The sport here seems to be which compiler manages to re-write the bad code best. Tail call optimization is only marginally relevant here, since the tail call is the addition, not one of the recursions.
4.
by serichsen 8y ago
- Technical decisions from non-technical people (especially management and politics) - False commitment to up-front design decisions, even in the face of absurdities and architectural violations - Inability to throw away code - Overengineer
5.
by serichsen 9y ago
From my german perspective, every assumption in this article looks quite gross and barbaric. Here, everyone is insured. If you break your arm, you get it fixed. If you get cancer, you get therapy. If you get the flu, you get a prescripti
6.
by serichsen 9y ago
Given the choice, I would.
7.
by serichsen 9y ago
The Fisher-Yates shuffle has an off-by-one.
8.
by serichsen 9y ago
Lisp's problem is rather that so many people play around with it, but not long enough to develop /good taste/ in it, and finally loudly complain about the language when their real problem is their lack of imagination. You dis
9.
by serichsen 9y ago
Common Lisp has “first” and “rest” as aliases for “car” and “cdr” where it makes sense.
10.
by serichsen 9y ago
Valid points, but not _the_ point. There is a big difference between allowing and supporting something. OO languages _support_ hidden inputs and outputs as well as programming by mutation. They _allow_ programming in a functional style, b
11.
by serichsen 11y ago
There seems to be a problem with ko: it alerts that retaking is forbidden even though the board has changed. Afterwards, play seems to be ended.
12.
by serichsen 11y ago
I am not on that mailing list, but I'd like to point out Emacs Lisp, which doesn't have modules (they would rather be called "packages" as in Common Lisp, but anyway, they just are not there). Instead, the idiom has emer
13.
by serichsen 11y ago
I see two problems with the basic idea of JSX: - Parsing is a mess, it is not even obviously unambiguous. - HTML syntax is horrible, and all templating language attempts building on it are verbose and clumsy. That is the negative argument (
14.
by serichsen 11y ago
OK, so who manages the keys, and how? I am aware of only two general principles to do this: centralized certificate authorities (possibly chained), and decentralized assurance, a. k. a. web of trust. Their advantages and drawbacks seem pre
15.
by serichsen 11y ago
It seems OK, but it would have been better if it was made by someone with more familiarity and experience with the language.
16.
by serichsen 11y ago
The question is about defaults. Current default of C and C++ is to cut all corners wherever it is not clearly impossible (sometimes even then). That is the insanity. Of course you should optimize wherever sensible.
17.
by serichsen 11y ago
> When those systems aren't well thought out or secure you have security issues. All evidence says that there are no well thought out and secure systems written in C or C++. If there is a way to do it, it has not been publicized yet
18.
by serichsen 11y ago
Yeah! Or COBOL! PHP! INTERCAL!
19.
by serichsen 11y ago
> Until very recently, this situation would not have occurred. Until very recently, people didn't even have smartphones that could have been suspected to contain useful information. > Apple and Google […] could no longer unlock t
20.
by serichsen 11y ago
COBOL will never die, either.
21.
by serichsen 11y ago
“I've seen things you people wouldn't believe…”
22.
by serichsen 12y ago
> XML is just s-exprs No. That myth has been decisively addressed by Erik Naggum about 12 years ago. His summary: > They are not identical. The aspects you are willing to ignore are > more important than the aspects you are will
23.
by serichsen 12y ago
Huh?
24.
by serichsen 13y ago
Meh. This is not "ahead of the curve" but just the mainstream, maybe a little behind.
25.
by serichsen 13y ago
12. No! That is not a good shuffle. Search for "javascript shuffle" to find a correct Fisher-Yates implementation.
26.
by serichsen 13y ago
I would never use a spreadsheet for basing decisions on. It is just too error prone. I do not know how many trillions of euros (and dollars) have been wasted due to some excel sheets having off-by-one errors in marking rows or similar iss
27.
by serichsen 13y ago
That is perhaps an excuse for people whose lips move when they are reading.
28.
by serichsen 13y ago
It seems that the uncertainty is much higher at the end of the blue curve. I wonder why. It also seems that the red curve has no uncertainty data. I would not dare draw any conclusion from these curves before I have satisfying explanations
29.
by serichsen 13y ago
No amount of abstraction will save you from finally having to determine how to represent the end result. That is totally orthogonal to the ability to delay the accumulation of something to be represented that way (which is just one strateg
30.
by serichsen 13y ago
s = [] for x in range(100): s = s.append(x) format s In other words, this is something that holds just the same for vectors of any type. The "philosophical" "argument" is really not relevant, si

More ›