161 karma · joined June 4, 2019
I just still wish they would have at least OSS'd EdgeHTML instead of just shoving it in a closet somewhere.
The Nim language in 2008 (when it was known as Nimrod) had originally been planned a similar approach of considering a unified AST with multiple "syntax skins," and as far as I understand there used to be a limited implementation of this. This would theoretically have been a boon for Nim, because an often complaint about Nim from emigrating programmers from languages with a C-style syntax was the (rather superficial) complaint - "no braces? Pythonic syntax? Yuck!"
https://forum.dlang.org/thread/mailman.1427.1428691340.3111....
The problem with this - and why Nim never really committed to the "syntax skin" concept - is that it would have led to far much fragmentation within Nim's own community as some users would prefer one "sub-language" over another. Given as it is the opinion of new languages (Nim included) towards a tool-based unified syntax formatting (e.g. certain naming conventions for identifiers, number of spaces for indent), "syntax skins" have become harder of a sell in favor of lingual consistency.
The original idea was that the same program could be rendered in a variety of different syntaxes in the author's IDE - but the implied maintenance cost of such skins plus that previously mentioned potential for fragmentation led to this idea falling to the wayside. Nim, as a language, grew to be quite flexible within its prime syntax over the years - e.g. the macro system (which modifies the AST directly) made way for a variety of DSLs (e.g. https://github.com/khchen/wNim#code-examples) that remain valid Nim code.
https://www.slideshare.net/KTNUK/digital-security-by-design-...
It seems like they want to do something like Rust, but with a new focus on regionalized memory management.
I find it amusing Paul regards C's origins as being "hacker" and Java being apparently not. How exactly was Java's original design (as Oak) by James Gosling that much different under the circumstances by which C was developed by Dennis Ritchie when Bell had been reworking PDP-11 UNIX?
Just add a "colorless" command line argument if you need to parse things without ASCII color codes. Better yet, detect when the program is outputting to a pipe and disable colorized output, e.g. like Git https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/19320
> They will use lots of math in their career.
The validity of this is highly domain-specific.
> 'git' and 'GitHub' are synonymous.
Aside from GitHub-a-likes (e.g. GitLab, BitBucket), what does this mean? I'm assuming that it's that you can use Git by its original use pattern (i.e. without a "single-source-of-truth-plus-issue-tracker-as-a-service" system and more as a "true" DVCS) but very few projects seem to really use it this way. They're important projects, sure (e.g. Linux) but they are few in number.
> Sprinkling printf statements is an efficient debugging technique.
This is...opinionated. As useful as GDB can be in a pinch I have often preferred to just output things to console. `printf` specifically is a bad example, as C doesn't have reflective abilities (out of the box, anyway), making debug-by-manual-print harder.
> Compiler warnings can be ignored, as they'd be errors otherwise.
I smell a Golang programmer...
> Using lambda in Python is a good idea because it shows others you have a CS degree and understand the "Lambda Calculus".
Kinda rolling my eyes at this one. Yes one can "be annoying" with FP-like concepts but lambdas can be very useful in a pinch.
>Object-oriented programming is the best and most common programming paradigm.
>Using a custom written Vector class makes your program object-oriented.
I feel I should add my personal falsehood: "State objects with methods means your program is object-oriented."
I am still somewhat surprised that Windows doesn't have a Docker-esque sandboxing system to solve this problem (I mean, it has Docker, but it's based on a full VM). I suppose in the third-party realm at the very least you have Sandboxie, but meh...
Something about pre-10 Mac OS is "cute." I can't put my finger on one single thing, so I suppose its more of an aggregate property.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lobster-font
https://web.archive.org/web/20180213181648/http://5in5nyc.co...
The more modern, post-WWII imago of the American Dream of a booming economy and cute little suburbs was overlaid over antiquated Jim Crow laws and early Cold War saber-rattling that would accelerate into the greater turmoil of the '60s, which would turn out a tragedy more than anything. Many of the criticisms you put on China now have mirrors in a historical America.
China and America are really both flip sides of the same coin. It is true that looking at China as a safe haven when America's economy and culture has become so anxiety-riden is silly and ignorant. China is able to rationalize itself with a liquefied idea "socialism" it never truly was able to understand in the first place, and has grown to content to treat the task of governing its people in similar kind to herding animals.
I would not pin China's blame singularly on the CCP or Xi for that matter, but I would rather describe the CCP a symptom of modern capitalism. If one were to hypothetically "clean the CCP's house" with a new stock of younger legislators that weren't "beneficiaries of the Mao era" as you claim, than you would likely find them repeating the same regressions as their predecessors; never mind that Xi himself was a victim of the Cultural Revolution, considering that his sister was killed by student protesters and his father was jailed for 10 years. China's problems (more problems of contemporary society in general) extend beyond the Mao legacy, similar to how Leon Trotsky did not regard Stalinism in the Soviet Union as purely beginning and ending with the one man.
Using codegen to handle the JSON stuff is clever, sure, but it certainly makes me uneasy! It gives a very Jenga Tower impression of the state of the project...
https://github.com/vlang/v/issues/35
I don't want to discount all of the work people have put into V. It is clear that they have made considerable progress since earlier this year and I commend them for pushing the language into a more usable state. Nevertheless, I still retain a considerable degree of skepticism.
A lot of the criticism of V takes aim at how the language was advertised which strikes a lot of people as rightfully annoying in the "C++ killer" space, something that a lot of people have put a lot of hard work already into which should not be entirely out of hand (this space is becoming very crowded for attention). If V's code remained the same at launch with its author choosing to be a little more conservative and thoughtful with its announcement, this type of response would not have happened. Its author did not make the status of the language entirely clear. When Odin came out a year ago, Lobster half a year ago, Zig three years ago, or Mun a month ago (of whom its authors were considerably modest: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21173822), sure, they were critiqued, but they were not met with the specific kind of response V had for a reason.
Keep in mind languages (that don't aim to be toys) should rightfully be subject to a greater degree of criticism as their goals are primarily to upend a domain in such a way that if they fail, it renders the efforts of a lot of other people writing code in that language as something for naught. People take gambles when they adopt new technologies in general, but languages (maybe operating systems by extension) are of a significantly different scope.
Could you cite this quote?
> They've concluded that Phase 1 is needed, without questioning, and using force by all means, even killing people, lying or forcing into slavery.
Capitalism also historically used force to support itself. Lenin supported armed revolutions, yes, but this became a necessary evil to him and he did not advocate for wanton violence. The thing is, suppose if the Bolsheviks were right about communism and everything - that means responsibility lies on the Bolsheviks to totally transform society, thus, they needed to secure these means: they needed to A) acquire state power make and B) prevent themselves from being undermined by a capitalist order. I point to Rosa Luxemburg's critique of Eduard Bernstein as evidence why moving beyond capitalism requires force.
You will find that, historically, Thomas Jefferson said similar things about the French Revolution:
"In France the 1st effort was defeated by Robespierre, the 2nd by Bonaparte, the 3rd by Louis XVIII and his holy allies; another is yet to come, and all Europe, Russia excepted, has caught the spirit; and all will attain representative government, more or less perfect. This is now well understood to be a necessary check on kings, whom they will probably think it more prudent to chain and tame, than to exterminate. To attain all this however rivers of blood must yet flow, & years of desolation pass over, yet the object is worth rivers of blood, and years of desolation. For what inheritance, so valuable, can man leave to his posterity?"
Lenin was in favor of armed revolution - but not wanton violence. This is why no one died during the October revolution, but millions did during the counterrevolution when the Bolsheviks had to assert themselves lest they would fall (i.e. the Russian Civil War).
>Once people is molded into one single line of thoughts, objectives and all property will be abolished
Marxism is not about turning people into the Borg and abolishing all property! Marx's critique of Capitalism actually went to say that Capitalism tended towards the degradation of property:
"We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence. From the Manifesto:
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily."
You want actual evidence of what actual major socialist thinkers thought of the state during the time when socialism was most relevant, read Marx's 18th Brumaire or read Lenin's State and Revolution and come to your own conclusions.
Lenin gives a detailed analysis of Marx & Engels on this point in the first chapter of State & Revolution.
The author thinks that when their imagined Mad Max society comes to be, they're going to be picking up a soldering iron against old Segas and TI-84s. If for some reason that you need to use computers in a developmental capacity (since the author's OS has an assembler and an `ed` clone) in a "post-collapse society," I don't think it would be that hard to find some discarded HP desktop or laptop to work on.
"The ability to buy and sell labor" is not really part of Marx's definition of capitalism - while LTV is important to Marxism, Marx's critique was that LTV is no longer clear because of Capital. Anti-marxists like to try and disprove LTV because it's the first thing in Das Kapital but they miss the point completely (Marx got it from Smith anyway).
What you call "corporatism" - the apparent abject deterioration of capitalism - Lenin called "imperialism" or "the monopoly stage of capitalism" a century prior, and he correctly pointed out that it was an an actual inevitability of capitalism due to the heightened concentration of capital.