chrismonsanto

You can't recommend your solution to others and then say that they can't judge whether or not it is a good solution.

> How come people still don't get them?

The reason these comments keep appearing is because tech community is large & growing and each person encounters & is confused by their first presentation in this style at a different time. As much as I hate the relevant xkcd meme, it is pretty apt here: https://xkcd.com/1053/

> Mice

This isn't a good analogy because you are in control of whether you use a mouse or not. If it confuses you, you'll either stop using it or figure it out before participating on HN. OTOH you can surf the web for years without encountering one of these presentations, so it's jarring when someone else creates a web page that violates your expectation of how the web works

> And I'd argue it's not even that non-intutive. From games to Powerpoint, all kinds of apps use the arrow keys to navigate -- why wouldn't one at least try them?

Because people are used to navigating the web with their mouse, not their keyboard

> Since time immemorial, the way to go forward in such pages is to press the left and right arrow buttons.

"Time immemorial"? Damn, I remember pretty clearly what life was like before Web 2.0, and I'm still in my 20s. The first time I encountered one of these presentations I was confused as hell, at least this one has the decency to put arrows to click in the bottom right corner, a lot of presentations don't.

That's a new turn of the phrase for me. I've only ever heard the expression "second-class parametric polymorphism" used in reference to enforcing predicativity (which does not rule out polymorphic recursion)

To be precise, you need to outlaw polymorphic recursion to be able to do full monomorphisation. I'm not sure if that's what you meant by "second-class" in this context

How does this compare to Solar-Lezama et al's "Sketching Stencils" approach to program synthesis?

It is an interactive program synthesizer, as it says in the overview

> very low quality, uneducated "developers" who all came from an alien culture

This is the level of discourse I've come to expect from any discussion related to systemd

Oh please, it's a poor use of rhetoric, and calling that out doesn't mean that you are somehow a robotic emotionless monster.

The ability to delete issues.

This is an irrelevant "attack." If you don't trust the site to serve you a safe installer, then you shouldn't trust the site to serve you a safe program either. Do you regularly verify the entire source code of programs you install?

Alternatively, I'll continue to speak up for the established terminology in the GC literature, and continue to recommend that those interested in this subject read sources like Jones' GC Handbook rather than the "official" Apple documentation.

People who are actively hostile against using the established terminology are unlikely to have the expertise necessary to contribute productively to these kinds of discussions anyway.

> The actual garbage collection in all collectors is proportional to the amount of data that needs to be deleted.

This is false, copying GC is a simple counterexample

The reference counting != GC thing gets repeated all the time on HN, so I'm glad you called this out. For the record, what these people call "GC" is better called tracing garbage collection.

If the program you want to install is included in your distribution's packages then this whole discussion is moot. We are talking about ways of installing from third-party sources.

You trust the upstream to provide you with a safe program, but not a safe installer? That makes zero sense, and your link doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary

Absolutely.

> which means you are basically giving your computer in the hands of a third party

As opposed to any other installation method? Do you regularly vet the entire source code of software you install?

> To be fair, the top comment here calls out Poe's Law.

The top comment when I posted was a copypaste of the joke disclaimer. And the top reply to the top comment at the time of this posting is a copypaste of the joke disclaimer.

> Many - possibly most! - people really don't look that deeply into things and tend to take stuff at face value (or don't know that there is a deeper meaning to spot), no matter how outlandish.

If someone can't figure out why generating a CSS class for every (property, value) combination is funny, then I don't think an explanation will help. Maybe it will give those readers an A-ha! moment and a valuable life lesson, but it won't be funny for them.

> All that as a mea culpa, as I read the OP's README and thought, "man, that seems like a bit of a mess... under what circumstances would you need to do that?"

If you got rused then that's great. The joke did what it was supposed to do. What sucks is that people who instinctively click the comments first won't get that experience, because some killjoy had to post "IT'S A JOKE DON'T FALL FOR THIS."

The effect of the joke is lessened when it is labeled as a joke, doubly so when every comment here copypastes the line saying it's a joke.

See also the latest reprinting of "A Modest Proposal," which kindly has "SATIRE -- DO NOT BELIEVE" in large caps on the front and back covers.

No, this is not true. Writing a program to check termination proofs is not difficult. Writing a program to construct termination proofs isn't possible in the general case. If someone hands you a formal pen-and-paper proof of termination it is quite possible to check it for correctness.

Analogous statements are true for programming in a dependently typed language.

You are incorrect. Your objection is like looking at a pen-and-paper proof that a program terminates and saying it is invalid because of the halting problem. If you want to read more about this subject, I recommend Adam Chlipala's "Certified Programming with Dependent Types": http://adam.chlipala.net/cpdt/

1. This post would have been more interesting if the person he was having this dialog with was a PL researcher/designer.

2. Uncle Bob is trying to speak with authority, but this subject matter is outside his area of expertise. At least in his previous post, he was nice enough to state this up front:

> Learning swift has been an interesting experience. The language is very opinionated about type safety. Indeed, I don't remember using a language that was quite so assiduous about types.

3. I see that Rust, Haskell, and OCaml were conveniently left out. He hand-waves away other modern languages with "negligible," which is hilarious because he is so obnoxiously wordy in the rest of this post. Not very convincing.

Researchers regularly make use of work from other countries, the scientific community is international. Even if one could make an argument for not allowing Canadians to access US research without payment, it doesn't follow that Elsevier and friends are the ones who should be paid.

Research done by government employees is legally required to be public domain. I see no reason we shouldn't extend that to researchers who take government funding.

You are missing a case for academics. Even after tenure, we have to continue publishing in these venues or our students wont be able to find work.

Use Library Genesis (http://gen.lib.rus.ec/) for books.

> Meanwhile, academic pirates continue to flood to Sci-Hub, domain seizure or not.

I realize readers of torrentfreak.com have a different relationship with the word "pirate" but--

This is not piracy. You are entitled to read work from Sci-Hub, as your taxes funded the researchers who created the work. We academics want you to read our work, we do not benefit in any way from publisher paywalls. We continue to publish in these venues because it is necessary for career advancement (whether for us, or for our students).

Please continue to "pirate" our work, and please spread the word about this problem.

My experience in publishing (in CS) is that the publisher does not offer assistance in typesetting. Additionally reviewers are not paid for their effort, and are not affiliated with the publisher--they do it out of a sense of duty / professional advancement.

The journals offer something of value because they provide high-quality taxpayer-funded research. The publisher is nothing more than a middleman, who should be cut out of the equation.

> x86 is not particularly nasty

x86's terrible reputation is well deserved. x86-64 fixes a number of problems, but for most of x86's lifetime we've had to live with 8 registers and the lack of IP-relative addressing...

Let's not forget how awful x87 floating point was, either!

I disagree that compiler analysis/optimizations would be considered under 'systems', I would expect that kind of work to be published in PLDI, which is definitely the PL community. Systems is more OSDI/NSDI/SOSP.

Metaprogramming also has a rich history in traditional PL venues like POPL and ICFP, such as the Scheme/Racket work on macros, Template Haskell and friends, staged computation work a-la MacroML.