almostgotcaught

there are plenty of linkers that parallelize linking

https://github.com/rui314/mold?tab=readme-ov-file#why-is-mol...

https://llvm.org/devmtg/2017-10/slides/Ueyama-lld.pdf

> Lisp and Smalltalk addressed this by not unwinding the stack on exceptions, dropping you into a debugger and allowing you to fix the error and resume execution without having to restart your program from the beginning. Eventually I'd like to patch CPython to support this

yea i've been meaning to do this for a while as well...

Don't understand what this has to do with my point - do you think you're supposed to only verify "propaganda" sources?

> That list has 100 companies using lisp today

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spot_checking_sour...

Lololol

> ITA Software by Google Airfare search engine and airline scheduling software. Cambridge, MA. Common Lisp is used for the core flight search engine. The larger Flights project is roughly equal parts CL, C++, and Java.

Read the last sentence AND this company got acquired by Google like 15 years ago. So ya my question still stands.

Ok now do the part where lisp is actually used for any remotely useful project today...

There's an enormous difference between writing kernels and writing compiler infra.

i don't know what this comment has to do with my point that OAI doesn't take commits from randoms, especially for infra code.

How many PRs do you have landed in Triton that you can just blithely say "contribute it"?

> "We've made this mistake before so for consistency we need to repeat it" is such a bad idea.

no it's not. you literally have no other choice. you cannot add scopes after the fact - it is a breaking change. you cannot have some parts of the language have scopes and others not - it's so much worse for the user. think about human languages and which ones get quoted as being the hardest to learn (those with many exceptions). you're just wrong.

> Which x? There are two in your code, one for each time you introduce a pattern Some(x) and each x has scope which of course ends when that pattern is done with

if each x's scope ends at the end of each case doesn't that mean there's only one x?

> we didn't make a new variable but instead changed the existing one.

so because python doesn't have scopes except for function scopes it shouldn't ever have any new features that intersect with scope?

you linked to a random detractors rant. i don't see what that has to do with whether a match statement binds a match?

> it shouldn't break fundamental rules of the language

it doesn't? you simply don't understand what a match statement is.

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch19-03-pattern-syntax.html

    let num = Some(4);

    match num {
        Some(x) if x % 2 == 0 => println!("The number {x} is even"),
        Some(x) => println!("The number {x} is odd"),
        None => (),
    }

notice that x is bound to 4.

because it's not a `switch` it's a `match` ie pattern matching...

i mean he's not a physicist of any sort so i don't think there's anything amiss about this? the "deeply unserious" part is that people can't (refuse to?) recognize that he's not a physicist.

385 comments based on a clickbait headline from telegraph (you know that sophisticated tech focused newspaper...)

what exactly is the acceptable style of discourse here then? purely exultant tropes and clickbait i guess.

> take a long time compiling

Lol np-hard is still np-hard no matter how you slice it (especially given vague objective functions).

then please enlighten me: what does the sentence mean?

> while I agree that bytecode-based analysis has its drawbacks

abstract interpretation of the bytecode like y'all were doing is the only way to robustly do type inference in python.

> https://github.com/google/pycnite

there's also https://github.com/MatthieuDartiailh/bytecode which is a good collection

> I didnt say any of those things at all.

what does this sentence mean?

> Apple is simply exporting to CUDA now.

> Even Apple is simply exporting to CUDA now.

This is like when journalists write clickbait article titles by omitting all qualifiers (eg "states banning fluoride" when it's only some states).

One framework added a CUDA backend. You think all of Apple uses only one framework? Further what makes you think this even gets internal use?

> Gentle correction: Python is typed now too

No it's not and you should lose your union card for lying like this.

I think people have these kinds of thoughts (and then commit them to paper) because they're utterly flabbergasted that such things can exist - as if there's some kind of massive conspiracy by Big Enterprise that enables this even though both $ENTERPRISE and SMEs play in the exact same market (by definition).

Newsflash: yes small organizations are better solving small problems (like "small tool has broken feature X"). Everyone knows that and feels it "on their skin". But they cannot solve large/enormous problems. It's just physics: big problems -> big requirements. Think stuff along the lines of "getting to the moon" or "building the Chunnel". Myopic individuals, who are bound to only see and understand work within their own vicinity, necessarily will bemoan the existence of large organizations. This is why reading history is valuable - because it is indeed myopic.

> if you are a google engineer

Do people really have this kind of inferiority complex? What exactly do you think Google engineers are? People with 5 eyes and for hands with 10 fingers each? They read the papers (Paxos or whatever) struggle to understand it, implement beta versions, and iterate just like everyone else.

> written language isn't a language, it's a notation. it's just a concise way to represent a waveform (a spoken sentence

My guy you realize that not all alphabets are phonetic lol

> it's certainly one dimensional because you either read forwards or backwards

Umm yes thank you for reiterating my point

> Yet they are languages according to formal language theory, a definition which I’d say is a bit more widespread than yours. Indeed what you propose roughly maps to (a subset of) context-sensitive languages in particular.

I love when people talk down to me as if I don't have a PhD in this shit lol. No actually what I'm talking about is Recursive languages.

> Then regex, HTML, YAML, and so on are not languages either according to your definition.

Do you see the M before the L there in both HTML and YAML? Do you know what it stands for? Markup. Markup is a funny word that colloquially means the same thing as annotate which bears a strong relationship to the word notation hmmmmmmmm.

Let me put it simply: if the force of the original comment is that context free languages can be 2d then I would say..... no duh.

> of course not a language in the same way English or Spanish are languages, but certainly a language in the same way mathematical formula, Lisp, or Java are languages.

It is mostly certainly not - the defining feature of all languages (human, formal, mathematical, programming) is that you can define new words/concepts/primitives. Sheet music is notation.

> (philosoraptor template:) Maybe paying professors more could help?

who is going to pay them more? institutions? do you think that institutions are acting against their own incentives somehow? institutions are acting on their incentives and it's producing suboptimal outcomes for society because spoiler alert the free market isn't the correct mechanism for absolutely everything in life.