DarkNova6

+1 couldn't agree more. It's concerning this account is on the top.

Carmack left id waaay before Microsoft has acquired id (transitively by acquiring Zenimax/Bethesda)

Why didn't I think of this sooner? You are completely right, there needs to be a a way to punish slop. If anything, it should lower the rating for website in the future as well.

That's because most of what you can see of a Codeberg is actually underwater.

For examples? Never ran into them myself but I don't do ops.

A large chunk of companies I've worked for or consulted for had their own on-prem Gitlab. I think they chose correctly.

90% of statistics on the internet are made up anyway

Thanks, I'm always happy to learn more about .net and the CLR.

Regarding #4, is this actually a done deal? I haven't dug into the JVM specifics, but I thought they would avoid allocating objects. And for now they just want to get the model right, while continue to optimize as time moves on. I think that's the right approach.

I actually see this way less critical because if you truly have performance-critical usage of structs, you know what you are doing. And if you know what you are doing, you will know about opting-in.

And for everything else? I think it's nice to have a range of benefits that come from having a value type without handing a gun to a monkey. Because the feature will be misused by people that don't know about tearing, thinking "value" is a free performance upgrade. And I do believe that it is the right mental model to reason about it.

I just don't see the huge issue. If the CLR has a way to provide atomic access to non-tearable structs, surely the JVM can too? We are talking CPU instructions here after all. Or am I missing something?

Sometimes I'm astonished how far they made it. But then again, they made their fortune by selling personal data to bad actors who manipulate opinions for polling and do all sorts of questionable dealings with it. And from there, they simply bought their competitors and maintained an extractive monopoly for people using social media for advertisement.

It's pretty much impossible that anything organic or creative could be created by Facebook at this point.

Look at the C-suite. It's full of people from tech and even bio-tech. It's the California strategy of buying up competitors and attempt a monopoly.

It's no surprise they let their own brands completely languish.

Yeah, it seems like much has already been discussed and agreed upon in the backstage. Burnham comes in, Streeting gives a go, and there is a smooth transition.

I could imagine that they simply didn't want to have weeks or months of limbo while the world situation is as unstable as it is. Labour very much campaigned on "being different than Tories". And you could argue that a lengthy contest is counter productive. Especially if it turns into a media circus that only binds attention and resources, giving Farage room to attack.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Starmer was the UK version of Joe Biden. He was the right guy to get Labor back on track and sort out the financial disaster left by the Tories. But he couldn't build a convincing vision of the future.

But replacing it with another guy that has no mandate is a fatal mistake. What Labor needed was an internal contest to fight for the best ideas, even if the winner was already pre-determined. A single local poll can't possibly decide the future of the country.

But perhaps the idea is to trigger a re-election because a "continue as usual" will be fatal for Labour and the country.

This is what makes the nuances of Valhalla's Value types so compelling. The idea are granular structs with "Integrity by default", where you can selectively give up constraints on class design to get performance characteristics.

Structs in most languages simply bunch a couple constraints together to get another set of performance benefits, but there's no law stating that they couldn't be singled out. In the design of Valhalla, it states that types can come in 4 buckets:

1: Fully identity classes (total control, mutable)

2: Value Based classes (no mutability, but full integrity and dense memory layout)

3: Implicitly constructed values (forced empty default constructor for swift bulk array initialization)

4: Tearable Values (No cross-field integrity during runtime for parallel access)

And I bet that for a vast majority of developers, #4 will come to a shocking surprise, thinking "values are threat safe" because they are told to use immutables.

This way of splitting up structs is the real interesting part of Valhalla, but this shitty AI-generated article buries everything interesting.

It is beyond me why I would get downvoted for legitimately pointing out shortcomings. I find it honestly frustrating how some people believe that “their language is best”. Until you point out real existing inconsistencies…

I've been let down by structs in C# repeatedly. First of all, there are no constructor guarantees and you can never fully avoid them representing an illegal state. Which, wouldn't be so bad if there was some kind of post-construction validation, but this also isn't part of the language.

This is fine if you hand-roll all your code yourself, but I often use mapping libraries to lower the code footprint and the problems resulting from schema changes are subtle and fly under the radar. This is different from classes with hard construction guarantees, which Java would offer with their "integrity by default" mantra. Where you can opt out of integrity for performance benefits (which is also part of the design).

And Nullability in C# is an absolute nightmare. The type system has completely different rules for nullable types that generalize over classes and structs and there is no generic such as a "Nullable type".

It's just lots of minor annoyances that don't form a cohesive whole.

It’s more nuanced than that if you include tearability and implicit constructors

The article is shit, the actual concept and roadmap goes well beyond the capabilities of C# or the CLR.

C# actually has a fair amount of gotchas and Java aims to make these explicit. So where C# mostly copied C from a low level perspeCtive, the Java guys approached this high level and analyzed in detail which constraints give you what kind of benefit.

So where in other languages, the struct/class taxonomy is binary, Java allows more granular control, reflection the semantics of the underlying domain. Snd as it turns out, structs have a wide range of footguns, especially in a parallel context.

Not if you do DDD where a calue type has exactly those semantics and for record types this is actually a free lunch.

You could probably a whole tech thriller on the evolution on Value Types in Java.

I’ve been reading the mailing lists and watched all videos on the topic and it is truly inspiring how much they managed to consolidate the design to something that always looked like java.

But while also going far deeper in granularity and understanding what it even means to be a value type and what optimizations can be done where

Ironic. This article violates all rules that it intends to set out.

It is easy to spot AI generated garbage.

I don't get it why you need direct DOM access. Just wrap it in JS calls. It's not like current websites are super fast and creating a wrapper will slow it down unnecessarily.

So... ?

I think you might reevaluate the runtime claim, since the JVM is perfectly capable of stackful coroutines these says.

> How come? On the books or they're actually selling internet cheaper than they source it?

My bad, the satellite business is profitable. It's the space rocket division that operate at a loss, which they state clearly in their IPO filing.

> xAI is a money burning furnace

Even Mistral is earning more revenue than xAI and the french seem well on the way of having a sustainable business who becomes a key player in Europe.

But I might be biased, my information is mostly based on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHD8BDFYyGI

Can you give examples?

Makes you think how he got so rich in the first place…

SpaceX is actually 3 companies, one of which is profitable. The satellite business operates at a loss and xAI is a money burning furnace.

Corporate representation in UNO when?

“For-Profit ClosedAI” would work too