Koshkin

> Haskell

https://book.realworldhaskell.org/

Window Maker looks alien to me as a Unix user. CDE is good, but I like TWM which is the default window manager in Slackware (if you want someting more Windows-like, you can switch to MWM).

MORICONS.DLL has always read 'Morricone' to me...

But you already know that it does and it doesn’t at the same time.

Sure, but wouldn’t it be clearer if they talked about a specific edge? Because there can be several edges leading to a node. (Or, are they talking about, say, all of the “inbound” edges taken together?)

> apply current

Going on something of a tangent: in engineering, it seems unusual to talk about “applying current,” it’s usually voltage (say, across a resistor) or some sort of an “electromotive force.”

> we imagine injecting 1 amp of current into a single node

I have always had a problem with statements like this. Current is a (measurable) property of an edge, not a node (vertex). One can’t “inject” current into “a single node."

Indeed. In Knuth’s Art the machine code was not the “scariest” part. (Programming is hard.)

> That isn’t much of a surprise, given that six-speeds have been the norm for years.

So, not everything is lost?

> 10 times faster than that of Java

I was hoping that these days' Java would be "almost" as fast C/C++. Oh well.

Incidentally,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_School_of_Mathematics

was top-notch

Fields are easier to deal with.

What keeps me from using vi derivatives is knowing that the idea behind it is the result of a misunderstanding. As Joy said himself, “One of the good things about EMACS, though, is its programmability and the modelessness. Those are two ideas which never occurred to me.”

I use “tcc -run” instead. It’s instantaneous.

  ./plic advent.pli 
  (ERR999)No valid statements in source program

(Goes back to reading an article about Common Lisp.)

On the TDA in general, I found this series of articles by Brandon Brown helpful:

https://github.com/outlace/outlace.github.io

Speaking of: https://www2.math.upenn.edu/~ghrist/notes.html

> Data doesn't actually live on a manifold.

Often, they do (and then they are called "sheaves").

Also, λs and μservices...

Hm... Why? Java seems to be a perfect language in which to understand things at a conceptual level!

Incidentally, NASM makes Win32 programming in assembler a breeze.

> LLM to generate an executable

... and the job of a programmer will be to explain, in as precise terms as possible, what they need the executable to do. (Reminds me of the idea of programming based on a natural language.)

"Keep at it partner, you'll get there."

I prefer that to this (valid) C++ syntax:

  [](){}

COBOL? If such time comes, we’d be lucky to even need the abacus.

I don’t think you necessarily need a mainframe in order to run a program written in COBOL. (There’s also emulation available, to accommodate worst case scenarios.)

“Why horse-driven carriages will never die.”

(They didn’t.)

I meant “updates.” The same happened to Windows 2000. Lean and fast at first, it turned itself into a hog.

Houston, TX

https://neilsbahr.com/