biorach

You're talking about Ken Thompson, Rob Pike and Robert Griesemers, among others.

You're not doing yourself any favors.

There's plenty of complex programming languages out there. Some are worth putting the time into. If you can program well in some other language you can get your head around Rust - give it some time - it's worth it.

No one said they are complete idiots.

They made a deliberate decision to design a language that did not take many developments in PL design since the 70's into account.

They had their reasons, which make sense in the context of their employer and their backgrounds.

Many people, myself included, prefer to program with languages that do not focus so much on simplicity

No, the person you were replying to was advocating for the intersection of ubiquitous features. C++ seems to be aiming for the union.

Come on, that's not what they're talking about at all.

I don't see the need to ascribe anything to an agenda. This is an article for popular consumption. They are focusing on the exciting bits (the gladiator stuff) and skimping on the wider cultural background. All pretty standard for popular science articles.

was that as insane as it sounds?

Man pages maintainer Alejandro Colomar announced in September that he was suspending his work due to a lack of support. He has now let it be known that funding has been found for the next year at least

in fairness I think the burden of proof is on whoever is claiming the brita lead filter is safe

> That said, an estimated 4.5-12% of California land burned annually prior to the Spanish getting here

What's the source for that? It sounds insanely high - enough to burn the entire land area of California every decade or two if the fires did not overlap (I assume they must have in this model)

In fairness, this is a response to a need which became common only relatively recently

well it's more of a metric than you've provided

> None of them get any usage.

Github stats show some uptake so clearly someone finds them useful

> It will either paste an older copy or not paste anything even though I just hit Ctrl+C (sometimes multiple times) within Calc.

Weird. I've used Calc extensively on Windows and Linux and have never come across this

> For them the risk of career sabotage vs a change of improved quality of life might be worth considering

The risk is way too high

> maximum matching over a graph (edmond's blossom algorithm)

Ruby/Rails has this?

> you are just saving money in launch time but spending more on servers.

But... That's kind of the whole point

Yes, it's just controversial topics. And yes, you're missing the cultural context. Which probably isn't worth your while learning about.

downvoted, but just for idiocy

> So it is very frustrating to see the discourse focused on inaccurate statements about async Rust

> No, ajross is very confidently making false descriptions of how async Rust and io-using operate. This website favors people who sound right whether or not they are, because most readers are not well informed but have a ridiculous confidence that they can infer what is true based on the tone and language used by a commenter. I find this deplorable and think this website is a big part of why discourse around computer science is so ignorant, and I respond accordingly when someone confronts me with comments like this.

They had an inaccurate (from your point of view) understanding. That's all. If they were wrong that's not a reason to attack them. If you think they were over-confident (personally I don't) that's still not a reason to attack them.

Again, I think ajross set out their understanding in a clear and polite manner. You should correct them in a similar manner.

> has argued endlessly with those who don't like the tradeoffs but only have a surface level understanding of the problem

But that's really not what's going on here.

ajross has an understanding of the fundamentals of async that is different to withoutboats'. ajross is setting this out in a clear and polite way that seems to be totally in good faith.

withoutboats is responding in an extremely rude and insulting manner. Regardless of whether they are right or not (and given their background they probably are), they are absolutely in the wrong to adopt this tone.

> Again you are wrong. A forum full of people who just like to hear themselves talk. I guess it makes you feel good in some way?

I think you're being unduly harsh here. There are a variety of voices here, of various levels of expertise. If someone says something you think is incorrect but it seems that they are speaking in good faith then the best way to handle the situation is to politely provide a correct explanation.

If you really think they are in bad faith then calmly call them out on it and leave the conversation.

> The ban of US pesticides is to stifle American infiltration of EU agriculture, and basically every other law can be viewed under this lens.

You really really need to cite some sources for this

This is glib stereotypical nonsense and quite at odds with the reality of the debates currently going on in Ireland

> Sheep seem to be the big problem. They will grind vegetation down to nothing. If trees are cut down and sheep brought in, the land stabilizes as overgrazed pasture. Then it won't support many sheep, but what it will support will keep it overgrazed.

Sorry but that is wildly out of touch with the reality on the ground. Any farmer that allows overgrazing to happen would not be a farmer for long.

There are plenty of sheep flocks but they are by and large managed well. While there are certainly issues with biodiversity and habitat loss, overgrazing by sheep is not even near top of the list of causes

"vague" is an accurate description of your comment. You can get as defensive as you want but you're just adding more noise

> iirc, based on what I've read earlier. i could be wrong, but don't have time to check it now.

Please, if all you've got is a vague recollection of stuff you read ages ago just don't comment at all. You're just adding noise

Wild accusations without any backup... please don't.

> but isn’t there something depressing about this? Like, faced with an interesting anomaly out there in the world, we have to resort to tweaking the model of dark matter that is already an invention to fit observational anomalies

This is unnecessarily negative. Physics progresses in fits and starts, with plenty of blind alleys and red herrings. Maybe we're in a phase akin to the aftermath of the Michelson–Morley experiment. Or maybe it really is that complicated out there.

I imagine the author assumed a technical audience wouldn't need to be told of the necessity of a reverse proxy in front of the wsgi server