and then do you suggest 8chan to start making their own ISPs around the nation in areas where there are no ISPs that will peer?
As an aside, the owner of 8chan already hosts 8chan with his own ISP.
10 karma · joined June 29, 2019
Discussion of all of those topics has taken place on cripplechan which MITMflare just terminated business with.
I'm sure you learned in an English class that you should capitalized the name of books.
>It's just a random work of text
It is anything but random. It is a holy text.
>There are several variants of it
Yes, this is because of the difficulty of reproducing books and from creating translations of it.
>Why should yours get special treatment?
I did not create the Bible. The names of any other book is capitalized, so I do not see it as special treatment.
>If you felt inclined to capitalized that too
If you even looked at the Wikipedia link, you would see that it is capitalized.
>it's just a work of fiction
No, it is not. It is a collection of actual events and actual writings produced.
>animation
This was a mistake. I meant to say imagination. A work of fiction comes from the imagination, not real life like the Bible.
>[it is] your opinion
Yes, it is my opinion based off mine and many others interpretation of the Bible. It is wrong to insult the Lord, thinking you know better than Him about what is and what is not a sin.
>magical fairie text
Again I want to point out that the Bible was composed and written by humans and not magical fairies.
>Or if you think your opinion is of more importance than the above magical fairie text...
No, I am sharing my interpretation of the Bible. I would prefer you to address the text as the Bible and not as a, "magical fairie text." To me, it seems like your are making these mistakes intentionally.
>magical fairie text
The Bible was not written by magical fairies, but by regular people.
>it's not a single homogenous group
True, but most of the teachings remain the same throughout the different denominations. Sexual immorality is condemned constantly throughout the Bible, both in old and new testaments.
>are they not allowed to evolve and improve over time
Yes, Christianity has evolved over time. If by improve, you mean turning things that are sins into things that are not, then I will disagree and say that you can not do that. You can not simply go against God's word. If God said that something is a sin, you can't just reply back that it's 2019 and He should get with the times.
And how would putting these early returns in a gigantic if condition or several increasingly indented if blocks fix these bugs? It will not fix any bugs since both forms are equivalent.
>early returns are gotos
All types of control flow can be represented with goto.
>gotos are harder to follow
Harder to follow than what? The majority of programmers are familiar with following gotos by using an abstraction over it such as using loops or if blocks.
>You can't move easily (think copy/paste) code than has early returns
If code is able to be moved to or be copied into another part of the codebase, this is a signal that the piece of code should be put in a function. If you are talking about using a subset of code following early returns, then you do run into the problem in not knowing what subset of early returns (aka preconditions) that are needed to bring be in a new function. This is the same with using large or nested if blocks.
>Early returns are artifacts of the assembly jump instruction
By this logic all control flow constructs are artifacts of that. Regardless whether or not you use early returns, you get equivalent assembly code after compilation.
>it makes no sense to have jumps in [a high level] language
I disagree. It makes perfect sense to have jumps in a high level language. A high level language should allow you to write abstractions over these jumps though. This way you can name and reuse patterns of jumps in your program. In addition you can think of early returns as a high level construct too instead of a low level one. You can think of if blocks as a monad. If we take a look at the article and used nested if blocks you could think of the type of the function as If If List (we can imagine that there is an interpreter behind the scene to convert this into a plain List). Since If is a monad it means we can do the join operation. This would turn it into a single If List. The obvious way to do this transformation by hand to the source file it would be equivalent to merging both if statements into a single one. If the else statements would return different results you would need to make sure you return the value associated with how far into the combined condition you get. Doing it this way is a little awkward. Also remember that monads give us the bind operation too. If we manually transform the source into using the bind operation we actually get the same thing as using early returns. Using early returns is a much clearer implementation of handling the conceptional If monad. By using the If monad we are only having to deal with a single if statement / condition at a time.
>Things becomes so much more expressive
I beg to differ. They are equally expressive, but early returns allow you to mention the preconditions / special cases all at the beginning of your function.
>Early returns is one of the big pillars of bad inexpressive entangled convoluted programming
I'm not sure how early returns make something entangled. Since they can only be at the beginning of a function, they can't really be entangled in your whole function.
>And what is people reason for using early returns? It makes less indentations
Yes, this is a side effect of being a monad. It means we can focus on a single if statement at a time instead of focusing on a bunch of nested if statements at the same time. This is the same thing as when javascript developers realize that converting callbacks that call callbacks, etc into using promises reduces the nesting that is needed.
In summary, I am not convinced from your argument that early returns are bad since they are an abstraction over assembly.