loglog

> on top of a well designed language constructed over past language design experience

While I believe that Chris Lattner is a great compiler designer, his language design record has been less stellar. Swift bidirectional type inference for instance feels like it was implemented because they had a compiler algorithm that they wanted to use, rather than a genuine need, and is just a completely avoidable problem. Trying to make a HPC language that is also Python compatible was doomed from the start. Hopefully the damage from going into this direction will remain limited.

Mojo is NOT Python compatible (although they initially wanted it to be). So they got all downsides without the upsides.

How is it possible to provide a zero knowledge proof that their circuit works for large problem instances if there is no efficient way to run or simulate the circuit with the required instance size?

"I believe that almost anything that has been formalised today in any system could have been formalised in AUTOMATH. Its main drawbacks were its notation, which really was horrible, and its complete lack of automation. Proofs were long and unreadable." That's like saying that anything that could be programmed today in your modern language of choice could have been programmed 50 years ago in assembly. Technically yes, economically no.

There are videos on the internet of drones being shot down with an assault rifle out of a 50 year old training plane, 1914 style.

A Bundeswehr worth of equipment is so little nowadays that Bundeswehr itself lost several Bundeswehrs worth of equipment while being at peace for the last few decades.

Americans are very comfortable with eminent domain, as long as it is applied to brown people.

This makes sense, because parking a car does take a similar amount of space as a studio apartment.

1. Java is mentioned in their comparison table. They just don't use it much. 2. There is really no reason to include Java in the search for your preferred language, since Kotlin is strictly better along every relevant axis.

That's a very low bar. Any language feels consistent compared to C++.

On a national scale, keeping a stock of transformers is peanuts. For this to be viable, they only need to be interchangeable, not identical.

I recommend to block the Linkedin feed with uBlock.

Traveling? Lake home? I am glad to go to work just to not listen to my wife how we are so poor and cannot have nice things.

> how many people here have actually worked at an early stage startup in a lead role

Obviously very few, because these roles are impossible to get into. What else did you expect?

Operator of the LinkedIn Website:

LinkedIn Ireland Unlimited Company Wilton Place, Dublin 2, Ireland

php is the only popular language that regularly removes insane legacy cruft (to be fair, they have more insane cruft than almost any other language to begin with).

Real men know that infinite sets are just a tool for proving statements in Peano arithmetic, and complex numbers must be endowed with the standard metric structure, as God intended, since otherwise we cannot use them to approximate IEEE 754 floats.

Your link is _not_ about a country that _actually_ imposed a sugar tax.

Counting warnings is a poor practice, because you don't see where warnings exist or are added or removed while reading or writing code. Suppression annotations in code next to where the problem occurs are more explicit, and the progress is easy to measure with e.g. git log -S. The main difficulty is automating adding these annotations. For at least one static analysis systems, there is an off the shelf solution: https://github.com/palantir/suppressible-error-prone

That's right, much of the market is negative sum.

Wealth tax is the best type of tax, because it incentivizes productive activities against speculation. It should be levied on a continuous basis rather than on transaction basis though, which is just basic numerical analysis.

I think that the problems with unchecked exceptions are due to the simultaneous presence of both checked and unchecked exceptions. The designers must have thought that checked exceptions would be the rule, but left an escape hatch.

If there were no checked exceptions to begin with, people might have thought about making the Java compiler (and later language server) infer all possible exception types in a method for us (as effect systems do). One could then have static analysis tools checking that only certain exception types escape a method, giving back checked exceptions without the type and syntax level bifurcation.

On the other hand, if all exceptions were checked, they would inevitably have had to implement generic checked exception types, ironically leading to the same outcome.

The plain Java equivalent of the proposed semantics would be a type system extension similar to JSpecify: @Result(ok=Ok.class, error={Checked1.class, Error2.class}) Object function() combined with enough restrictions on the usages of results of such methods (e.g., only allow consuming the results in an instanceof pattern matcher; not even switch would work due to impossibility of exhaustiveness checking).

The one feature that the proposed Kotlin error types share with Java checked exceptions is that they can be collected in unions. However, the union feature for checked exceptions is pretty much useless without the ability to define higher order functions that are generic over such unions, which is why checked exceptions fell out of favor with the spread of functional APIs in Java 8.

Math does that. Peer review cycles are measured in years there. This does not stop fashionable subfields from publishing sloppy papers, and occasionally even irrecoverably false ones.

Have some pity for those Senior Expert Architect Full-Stack Developers (fresh out of boot camp) in urgent need of job security.

There is no "Navier-Stokes theorem". There is a famous class of open problems whether Navier-Stokes equations are well-posed (have solutions that don't explode in finite time) for various initial data, but that type of question is completely irrelevant for any practical purposes. I do share the feeling though. As a non-expert, I have no idea what the existing, allegedly practically relevant, formalizations of distributed algorithms actually guarantee.

1. There are tons of static analyzers for C++. Does none of them support type system augmentation? 2. Is the proposed solution really more practicable than "typescript for c++" [0]?

[0] https://github.com/hsutter/cppfront

It was a terrible idea to market it as Python-compatible, and they are now slowly walking away from it.

It was extremely easy for that train to stop in Bonn-Beuel, which is anyway far superior to Troisdorf for a train that was originally scheduled to stop at Bonn Central Station. Failing to stop there shows perfectly how little DB cares about its passengers.

Removing parts of the city to add more lanes will also help decreasing demand - it's a win-win!