teo_zero

> the difference in positions is "this could be made better" vs. "but this is already so much better than before"

I would say "this could be technically better" vs. "this is already economically better than anything else"

> As for 3 instructions for array access, in a simple loop a compiler can convert index access to pointer increment.

In such a simple loop where you access one field in each iteration, yes. If you happen to access more fields, or the same field in different arrays, then you have more pointers to increment.

I can't help wondering why so many new languages provide two separate mechanisms to define mutable and immutable variables.

I see a value in defaulting to immutable unless explicitly stated, like in Rust. But having to choose between two different 3-letter words, like let and var, what stops one from always using var?

Coming to Jaithon in particular, I also wonder what the scope of immutability is, when it allows the following:

  let names:list[str]=[]
  names.push("whatever")

If a function takes a list[str] as input, how do I signal that it does or does not modify the list? And if it does, will it only shuffle the elements (e.g. sort) or will it also change the strings themselves (e.g. uppercase all elements)?

Const-ness is a complex topic, with more cases than can be captured by two keywords at variable definition.

Sometimes yes, sometimes an equilibrium is finally reached. The fact that we see more equilibrium than extinction is purely "survivor's bias".

> An unclosed tag occurs when an opening HTML tag like <div>, <p>, or <span> is missing its corresponding closing tag.

Since when does <p> requires a closing tag? Note that TFA lists this among "spec violations" and not merely "best practices".

> This is worthy feedback to the author

You can say the same about detecting grammatical mistakes: it's nice to warn the author, but please send them a private message, don't pollute the comments section.

The topic is the expression "itadakimasu". What the blog purports to be, belongs in the boundary. Who wrote it belongs in the boundary. Whether the syntax is correct, contains em-dashes, uses nice colors and fonts, belong in the boundary. Comment about "itadakimasu" are on topic, others are off topic.

Ah, now I see that indeed we agree without understanding each other. The source is a misinterpretation of your sentence far up the thread:

> I can't see why the calling convention could matter.

The "could matter" was understood as "would influence TCO" and so the rest of the thread was devoted to explain how the two are connected, while you meant "should be fixed and not be changed at the compiler's whims".

And you are right, of course: if a function is static and its address is never taken, the compiler can choose whatever calling strategy it wants, possibly one that facilitates TCO.

Thank you. Sometimes I forget that for each and every significant experience in life there's probably an XKCD page that captured its essence!

If I have read the article, then reached the comments sections, it's because I have found the subject interesting. It's like watching a movie and someone trying to tell me unsolicited news about the director's private life. I don't care: tell me about the movie, instead.

Comment about the content, not the form.

The example you set up was about f() calling into g() calling into h(). Why do you mention h() calling into g() now?

The whole thread is about how the traditional calling convention makes it difficult to implement TCO in C. Functions with different arity having different stack layout is indeed one of the roadblocks, so I think we agree here, no?

> But I think your comment "this is AI" is warranted.

Clue: it's never warranted.

Nobody wants to hear it. Even when it's true. Even when it's evident (actually less so when it's evident).

> There is a Japanese word that almost everyone reading this has already heard

I had never heard this word. It's the second time in a row that I encounter something unknown to me that is characterized as being universal. Curiously enough, both cases were related to Japan. So either I belong in a minority who ignores well-known elements of that culture, or someone overestimates how widespread such elements actually are.

h() can't have more arguments than g(): that's an important limitation.

Yes, no doubts. But why does the author think that in this case such process was followed, and was so successful to deserve the "amazing" adjective? How did this specific design manage to convey the intended feeling? Was it better than the proto version that was never released?

It's like someone recommending a restaurant saying "tastes good", with no details to back up such assertion.

No, I don't find anything amazing in Blade Runner's title sequence, and the article does nothing to convince me.

Yes, they got small-caps spacing right: hardly amazing. And what about the "feeling" the article talks about? Where is it and where does it come from?

Technically true.

Practically, to make a substantial profit, what you sell must be more worthy than something you can also download for free. So you must sell an enhanced version of the original software. And that is what the GPL wants you to give back and not keep for yourself.

Absolutely. That's how coding used to work in the 70s. Then software passed from people to companies, which proved alien to the cultural values that had hold so far. At the end of the 80s Stallman designed something to address the corporate world with a language they would understand. They had copyright, he created copyleft.

Now, please reread your post replacing "people" with "corporations" and check if it still sounds reasonable.

I'm confused. You begin your post with a stance that's typical of copyleft proponents, then you end it in the opposite direction.

There is a trait in human nature that pushes us to share our knowledge. But we would like this sharing to be mutual.

When I publish a piece of software for free, I would like others to read it, comment it, give me suggestions on how to make it better, and the whole community can benefit from the process.

Unfortunately, someone might instead take it, start making profit out of it, and never giving anything back to me or the community.

As a device to get the former effect and avoid the latter, a sort of "contract" was created that mimicks a copyright licence. It is called copyleft and says that you can do whatever you want with my work except profit.

Now, someone might say that stopping a third party from profiting out of something they have not made is correct, someone might say it nevertheless means removing a freedom from them.

Whose side are you on?

> 16-bit Commodore Amiga era

The Motorola 68000 was a 32-bit processor. What Commodore Amiga was 16 bits?

Does anybody know why the site is called 16-bits? Aren't trackers an expression of the first 32-bit computers?

I thought "makers" all used Python. What's the friction that EYG is supposed to remove?

LOL, and an internet connection, too!

But, seriously, of course "web" requires internet and a computer and an operating system. But since when "web" also means Node.js?

If a web component is advertized as dependency free, I expect something that I can include in a <script> tag and it works. Am I wrong?

Do you mean I don't need Node.js on the machine where I run it?

How can it be defined dependency free if it depends on Node.js?

Good article!

I just wouldn't start off with bold sentences as

> SIMD can be simple to understand

and

> writing SIMD is just about as easy as a for loop

and then the first example requires 12 lines to replace one line of scalar code.

Be honest and say SIMD is hard but the results are worth it!

(Another nitpick: if this article is for newbies, don't use SIMD-only words and concpts before explaining them. Step 5 is good: scalar tails are mentioned and described. Step 1 is bad: nobody is supposed to know what broadcast mean.)

> if you’re careless about one thing like that you’re probably careless about other things

I'm not convinced. This rule holds only if the two "things" are related. But one can have a passion for serving the best quality coffee, and be a total wreck in graphic arts.

Good idea but strange syntax. It would be more idiomatic if the command came first and the list of globs last.

Additionally the use of "--" is not what everybody expects: here it is used to introduce one argument, the command, while it's usually meant to introduce multiple arguments without worrying if they have a leading "-".

A possible revised syntax with command as the first argument followed by a list of globs optionally introduced by "--" would allow to enumerate all files with a leading "-", which the current syntax cannot:

  enumerate 'whatever {}' -- '-*'

I'm assuming "-f" for simplicity, but the same reasoning holds for "-L" too.

> nobody can tell from reading my code whether I wrote it in Vim

You mean, except for the spurious :w here and there...

But why? What's wrong with a tidy notebook?