1,030 karma · joined June 3, 2010
The combination of Tailwind and daisyUI made it possible for me - a backend developer - to pretentd to be somewhat competent in frontendland, which has been incredibly handy, work-wise.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-services/document...
The article suggests IVF for larger datasets - this is the direction I'd certainly explore, but I've not personally had to deal with it. HNSW sharding/partitioning might actually work even for a very large - sharded/partitioned - dataset, where each query is a parallelized map/reduce operation.
HNSW has been great for relatively small datasets (a website with 30K pages), but it’s a dangerous stretch for anything bigger
[0] https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/updates/public-preview-azu...
This our first experience in infrastructure SaaS (we opted for Azure) - way harder than we planned for, but seems to work!
- Have you ever heard of ICQ? - No
I heard that it’s a special form of torture, since those CS programs must be hard, but I don’t really buy it.
Elixir/Erlang has function-level pattern matching, which I really like. I’ve yet to see it anywhere else, though my understanding is it came from Prolog.
My question angles more toward learning functional programming first, and I doubt it'll ever happen at bootcamps (though - my understanding is that's exactly what happens at Berkeley/MIT with Lisp/Scheme in CS101 (I'd argue with decent results)) - so it's very much a hypothetical.
I discovered the Elixir runtime (BEAM) a few years before Elixir was created (we were using the Erlang language then), and for my specific use cases, when I understood the principles of concurrency, error handling, and introspection in BEAM, it caused quite an epiphany. It was also scary, because I had to unlearn pretty much everything I knew :)
From a purely esthetic perspective, I find that pattern matching and tail recursion-enabled programming patterns are more concise, easier to comprehend, and are less error-prone than those offered by the more mainstream languages that don't have those features.
In my experience - and I'm not a particularly great programmer, so it was welcome - I found that I produced code with signifcantly fewer dumb errors when I no longer had access to imperative programming paradigms and was forced to come up with more "functional" solutions.
I don't believe that functional programming is inherently more complex than what we learn in school/college/work with conventional languages. My question really stems from the idea of learning functional first - and I do wonder what that would look like.
Also, "lorry" is such a great word, too bad there's no use for it in the US.