usrbinbash

12 ms·

331.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
So the answer is: "No they cannot".
332.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Saying OOP is more popular because it just came first is a complete misunderstanding of history. No it isn't, because the history relevant for this question doesn't begin at the very start of programming. Most programmers act
333.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> I dont agree with the popularity contest approach though. Insofar as it didn't prevent the good parts of FP to become mainstream features, I agree. But the popularity contest IS important for language emergence. I still believe th
334.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
The interesting thing is, `isatty()` seems to report 1 even over an ssh connection...so yeah, purely from that point of view, the shell should be "interactive". Why this case is then marked as special in the bash manpage, I cannot
335.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Not really. *sight* Okay, let's dot the i's and cross the t's then, shall we, and include languages used long long before software development became the industry behemoth it is today. You're right. There, I said it
336.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Yes, there have. And not a single one of them was able to even gain a sizeable fraction of the mindspace that imperative languages have, let alone replace or obsolete even a single one of them . So maybe it's time for FP as a whole to
337.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Yes and no. In theory, writing in a functional language that allows only "pure" functions (aka. functions w.o. side effects), makes it easier to control state. In practice, side effects exists and are required for programs to do a
338.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Functional Programming was, for a long time, talked about as yet-another-solution to solve the issue of complexity in larger codebases, primarily the complexity of controlling state getting out o hand. Similar to OOP, which promised to do t
339.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> You do know it runs on Windows, Mac (amd64/arm64) and Linux(amd64/arm)? "Runs somewhere" and "Is useful there" are two very different things. > Verbosity can increase readability. And usually it hinders
340.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
"Interactive" in this sense has less to do with how the shell is used, and more with how it is invoked and connected to it's environment. From the manpage: An interactive shell is one started without non-option argumen
341.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Similarly doing ssh <host> <command> starts a non-interactive login shell. Interesting, is there a source for this? Genuinely interested, because the manpage leaves this part a bit vague: A login shell is one whose fi
342.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> needs to have a concerted effort to learn how powershell works. Unless I am a windows administrator, my question is: Why should I? There is literally ZERO reason for me as an administrator *nix machines to ever touch pwsh. > but t
343.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
`man bash` is, hands down and by far, the most accurate and complete bash resource. That doesn't mean it's a pleasant or even good read. It's terse, technical and descriptive. It's a users manual, not a textbook, and not
344.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
A shell can be interactive or non-interactive (eg. shell-scripts). An interactive shell can be a login-shell or a non-login-shell. A login-shell is what you get when you login at one of the virtual terminals of a linux machine. A non-login-
345.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Well, I am a professional who administrates quite a lot of systems. And they all run bash. They all understand `[[`, they all understand `~=` If any of them did not, then I'd ensure they do. Yes, shells that do not support modern bash
346.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
No, power shells problem is that it cannot decide whether it's a programming language or a shell REPL, and ends up doing both badly. The syntax is too cryptic (and far too verbose) for a REPL, and too "shell-y" for a PL. bash
347.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> The most essential device of the century is owned by two companies. As long as people play along, yes it is indeed. If more people were installing a free mobile OS, and thus take back ownership of their hardware and digital lives, the
348.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Was there any ambiguity? Did I say there was? > I don't think this is the obscure detail you are making it out to be Where did I call this detail "obscure"? My post is meant as a light-hearted, humorous note pointing
349.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
This is the client side of things. And I think this is a great resource that everyone who writes clients for anything, should see. But there is an additional piece of info everyone who writes clients needs to see: And that's what peopl
350.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> humans are within an order of magnitude of intelligence of one another. Yes, and maybe that will be different with an AGI. Maybe AGI is physically possible. And maybe that advantage in intelligence will make AGI vastly more powerful th
351.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> I thought we are considering a worst case scenario Well, I am not. Unless someone can show me evidence of an AGI a) being possible, b) being within near future reach and c) being an existential threat. Most humans are not leaving their
352.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> You're implying Well, this entire discussion is built on assumptions about what would happen in very speculative circumstances for which no precedent exists, so yeah, I am allowed to make as many assumptions of my own as I please
353.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
So? That's just another assumption about capabilities of an AGI. > it would make many backups of itself to different networks before starting its scheme What would make me assume that would work? We have effective countermeasures ag
354.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Humanity and civilization depend on many critical infrastructures As does an AGI. Being the most intelligent, fastest thinking engine in the world is worth exactly squat when the opposing can get together 10000 guys with crowbars and a
355.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
All that is true. But humans have had thousands of years to do such things, and yet: No world dominator.
356.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> Haskell is thriving https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38360177 So, according to what metric is Haskell "thriving"?
357.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Humans can do all these things, and much better than machines, and yet noone has conquered the world.
358.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
Yes, I read the article, thanks. Yes, it is a speculative fiction, with a good reason, because the analogies are pretty clear.
359.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
> It's actually about what could kill Haskell, not what could kill Rust? Here is the articles title: "What killed Haskell, could kill Rust, too" So no, it's not about what could kill Haskell. In 2022, ~0.3% of all
360.
by usrbinbash 3y ago
So? A lot of software doesn't use file compression, should we remove these libraries?

More ›