mden

But adding functionality grows in effort as more code is added. At some point it makes sense to improve a code base so you improve the rate at which you are getting "there". In fact there are a lot of code bases, perhaps most, which simply cannot get there in any sane way and fall short of achieving their goal. You might not care how goals are achieved as a user but as an engineer it's worth exploring and discussing different approaches.

A hierarchical 'todo-list'. Aiming to match notepad's ease of use but with a bit more structure and eventual collaborative features. Still very early stage but available here - https://atlas.denchev.io/

If I remember correctly from the presentation, Must claimed radiation was not a significant concern with the exception of things like solar flares. Can anyone comment on the accuracy of that?

For the lazy - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttps...

This is incredibly cool! I wonder how useful it really is for people not familiar with the subject already. Anyone new to Python care to chime in?

So maybe another decade or two? I'm not sure a 'just' is fair when aiming for something never done before.

It's close, but I think NeoVim's RPC model could be huge. Writing a new frontend for vim no longer seems that crazy of a goal which makes it easier for people to experiment with new editor ideas while relying on the very solid core of vim (well at least I find that exciting, idk if the general vimmer cares).

Why did you have to remind me about Kingkiller Chronicle :(

Also Brandon Sanderson's Way of Kings (fantasy and same author as Mistborn). The audio books are really good.

If that's what makes you happy ;)

I find meta-arguments like this really silly. You are simultaneously telling him that people are entitled to their own opinions while at the same time saying his opinion is invalid.

As to it being political correctness, I would argue that has little to do with it. It's really marketing - an attempt to change the perception of something to achieve some goal. No one's feelings are hurt when you say something is challenging (I guess unless you explicitly say challenging compared to what).

This[1] is a good compilation of things she might get indicted for.

[1] https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-reall...

Well, it's great that they are not forced to show up late then.

Most problems already have some sort of solution for them. When you make a claim that your solution is better than the existing solution you often provide a better UX in some respects. For this you have to make design decisions some of which don't have an accepted standard. This is where you are pushing the boundaries.

On the other hand, UI style and UX naturally improves over time. Compare Windows 95 and Windows 7. There are certainly style and UX changes in the latter that are superior. A lot of people may not like Window's Ribbon interface but I think it was definitely an interesting new design, one which I think will in the long term prove to be better than plain drop down menus.

So I guess I am making the claim that if you are really invested in your product you probably have ideas on how it could be improved and a lot of those ideas are uncertain but deserve time to be attempted.

Fair enough, but then wasn't the idea of icons and folders considered clever at some point in the way you are describing. It seems that the vast majority of design is not better than the current accepted standard, but every so often someone designs something which is good and becomes the new standard. At some point you have to be willing to do something potentially stupid if you have any interest in pushing the boundaries or am I still missing the point you are making?

I think gmail's redesign from a few years ago falls into what you are describing - trying to design something more "modern and clever" which in some way was to the detriment of the users (at least if you were judging by the reception and all the critique). But at the same time if you don't try to maintain a more modern interface I think you risk being left behind, so you have to balance "clever" with "expected" design.

Trying to be clever is the main thing that has led to progress and eventual better design.

Amazon's drop down menu comes to mind - http://bjk5.com/post/44698559168/breaking-down-amazons-mega-...

There's also https://github.com/tomaka/glium which seems very promising.

I think that's the point he is making as well. Except it might be confusing that he is using numbers for log(n) and number of digits for srqt(n).

I think Microsoft's Surface Book is a realization of that.

As another example it seems that Rust does the same:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Ais...

I was curious about whether using a vector over list would have any effect even though the size is so small and the answer seems no (I guess as it could be expected).

It seems like the listed OCaml program has a default level of 9 where as the C++ one uses 6?

Times using original listing (minus print stmts):

  $ time ./ray-cpp  
  real    0m3.369s  
  user    0m3.347s  
  sys     0m0.010s

  $ time ./ray-ml   
  real    0m4.710s  
  user    0m4.703s  
  sys     0m0.003s

Time after changing the 9 in the ocaml program to a six:

  $ time ./ray-ml  
  real    0m4.032s  
  user    0m4.026s  
  sys     0m0.003s

Seems like C++ has a good edge. Above was ran on a 64 bit machine.

I can't see that being too much of a problem if you use the concept of "core hours" during which everyone should be available. Say, make core hours be 10am to 4pm. For anything else, email should be sufficient, imo.

Some of the cleanest code I've seen! Pretty fun skimming through files and functions.

This may be a controversial claim, but in programming often style is a major part of substance. Even in the event your program is correct if it's stylistic written in such a way that it makes it easier to break in future edits then it's a lower quality program then it could have been if written with better style. In my view the quality of a developer is to a large degree expressed by the style of their code.

(Edit: This is not to say that there can't be multiple good stylistic options, just more that the bad ones by far outnumber the good ones and at the end of the day it does matter how your code looks if you plan on supporting it for a long time)

Judging from my account, no you don't. Maybe if you are planning on being certified but just to take a course, no.

Could you give an example of a dangerous side-effect that is not a mutation?

Can someone tell me if the following makes sense? I want to use Bayesian networks for sysops. What I have in mind is hooking logging, process information (e.g. resource usage), and other information as nodes to a Bayesian network and then training it in a production environment. From my admittedly small understanding, it seems like a properly configured network like that will be able to triage issues and even infer causes and take potential actions to correct them. Of course you would need to limit it's ability to act so it doesn't decide to hose your entire system. Since it has the power in some sense to observe, it can even train itself by observing the results of its actions.

Anyone know of anything like this being used or have ideas why this would be stupid to do outside of it being difficult to get right?

Explain. You are saying CMake is bad with gmake but good with ninja?

Ninja's magic happens before the compiler in deciding what needs to be compiled quicker than gmake.

Yup exactly what we use it for. Combined with Jenkins, makes it easy to make sure your master branch is in a good state.

Our team has had a decent compile time improvement by switching to ninja[1] from gmake.

[1] https://martine.github.io/ninja/manual.html