sesm

Why make this a behind-the-scene optimization instead of just introducing `new`? That would make things much more clear for everyone.

Actually, we already discussed Rust move semantics on this website some time ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43059293

And again, the best way to explain this is by comparison to C++

Rust was created as a C++ replacement, borrows the 'zero cost abstractions' motto from C++, relies on RAII for resource management like C++ (not many languages do it), has the same approach to concurrency (in-place mutation guarded by locks), uses the codegen backend that was created for C++. It's mostly a C++ subset with more guardrails.

Edit: RAII

It wad easy to teach to Java devs just by using one mnemonic: PECS = Producer Extends, Consumer Super

That's one of major problems I have with Rust docs and community. The best way to explain most things in Rust to experienced dev, is by comparison to C++. But all the docs and blog posts explicitly target newbies and avoid comparison with C++ at all cost.

What happened in 2024 that changed your mind?

Yep, mega-impact is a classic example of an ad-hoc hypothesis. For example, Moon formation is much better explained by multi-impact hypothesis, which also requires less assumptions.

Yep, asking questions directly in the notebook, then editing the answer and executing it would be very powerful. I think `jupyter-ai` is close to this, judging by description, but I didn't try it.

Their core platform and some basic language plugins (Java, Python) are open source.

I'm paying for their IDEs out of my pocket since 2012

IMO the right intuition about a tool comes from applying it in the context where it provides a real leverage. In case of Category Theory that would be advanced algebraic topology (not re-phrasing basic things which are easier to understand without CT).

Good point, algebraic topology is mostly concerned with Top -> Grp functors to prove the properties of continuous transformation, while Haskel community focuses on Hask -> Hask endofunctors to use fancy names for mundane things.

But what's the utility of this definition? Does it help solve or prove something?

If it was, I would like to see the link

You don't need category theory to connect dots with arrows, graph theory is enough for this.

I think your reply overstates the importance of category theory in mathematics and doesn't give any hint on what it is about.

IMO a better reply would be: category theory appeared to unify the concepts around using discrete objects to prove the properties of continous objects in topology, like fundamental groups, homology groups and homothopy groups. It is only practically useful for very advanced proofs like 2nd Weil Conjecture. Any usage of it in programming is only an analogy and is not mathematically rigorous (see https://math.andrej.com/2016/08/06/hask-is-not-a-category/)

> In the course of this book, we learned that programming/computer science is the study of the category of types in programming languages.

This is a golden quote.

I'm using Ergodox for 9 years and still can touch type fluently on laptop keyboard. However, I never do heavy programming tasks on the laptop, only messaging, notes and small fixes.

I think the more customized your Ergodox layout is the easier it is for the brain to treat 2 different keyboards as 2 different input devices.

You can check prices for the largest gas station network here (table in the middle): https://lukoilazs.ru/category/stoimost-benzina-na-segodnya/

Prices are in RUB/L, 1 USD ~ 80 RUB, 1 EUR ~ 100 RUB.

Then make your own conclusion.

Also known as "garbage in - garbage out" approach. That's how Clojure standard library is designed.

That's why 'New Architecture' is a bad name. They should have called it 'Bridgless Architecture' or just 'V2 Architecture'.

I remember how in an old ClearCase codebase we had a comment saying `New! <projectname> 4`. Version 4 was about 20 years old at that point. We kept this comment as a reminder to never use 'new' when naming or describing anything.

This book talks about unit tests, but for UI they are mostly useless. I found that for UI the most essential refactoring tools are storybook and visual diff tests.

I think malware check should be opt-in for package authors, but provide some kind of 'verified' badge to the package.

Edit: typo

One issue: 'classical mechanics' section doesn't introduce Hamiltonian, and instead it's introduced in chapter 2.2 as if it is a QM concept.

In my uni Classical Mechanics course was a pre-requisite to QM to ensure that students have a good intuition about Lagrangian and Hamiltonian formalisms, because those are non-trivial concepts by themselves.

Author's definition of simplicity is self-contradictory: fewer moving pieces result in highly-specialized monolith systems, while breaking up everything into components with clear interfaces results in more moving pieces.

This entire situation looks very suspicious. Was Carmack even responsible for triaging research projects and allocating resources for them? If yes, then he should have fought that battle earlier. If no, then the best he could do is to refuse to use that OS in projects he controls.

When I'm asking about a niche topic, LLM with web search enabled is infinitely better than without.

In the age of LLMs responsible maintainers should treat contributor PRs the same way they treat AI slop: rewrite it if it's salvageable and ignore it if it's not. Accepting any contribution 'as is' shouldn't be allowed unless it's a trivial 1-liner (with a thorough investigation attached).

I think the best way to achieve that would be grouping plus ability to expand/collapse groups.

If you assume constant density, anything becomes a black hole at certain volume. The question is: is our universe big enough to be a black hole or not.