otabdeveloper2

> ...but I don't really understand what it implies

It means "faster than the slowest language currently in common use, I guess".

> I'm incapable of understanding the mindset the man is in - total awareness of impending death.

Seriously? Every human being on Earth over a toddler's age is totally aware of impending death. To date nobody has ever lived forever. The only question, for every human being, cancer or no, is how many years you get before you eventually die.

Modern man just makes my head shake in disbelief sometimes...

That's because professional outcomes for programmers aren't related to aptitude. Nobody ever got promoted for writing good code. (But the reverse is very common.)

"1M socket connections" is easy.

Having them all do something useful at the same time is the hard part. (And no, "async" won't save you here.)

> Why I quit a $500K job at Amazon to work for myself

Presumably, the answer is "because I already earned all the money I wanted to earn".

Newsflash: Facebook's customers are advertisers, not the honeypot victims stuck to their site.

> What must the Aztecs thought of the Spaniards whose holiest emblem is a man being publicly tortured to death.

The meaning and symbolism would have been blindingly obvious to them. In general, Christian and pagan theology is basically the same. Christianity is a direct development of pagan thought.

The modern thought framework for 99.9% of modern people is Gnostic, not Christian. Both Christianity and paganism is thus completely impenetrable and incomprehensible for pretty much every person alive today.

"^W" is this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-of-Transmission-Block_char...

In Unix line editors it is traditionally used to mean 'erase the previous word'.

See also documentation for ASCII (http://www.robelle.com/smugbook/ascii.html for example) for origins of ^C, ^D, ^S, etc.

I think Nix is the final boss of language-specific package managers and where we'll eventually converge.

Lung cancer is the least of your problems if you're a smoker.

Smoking greatly increases risks of literally every possible health condition.

(This is why the first question you'll be asked by a doctor is if you smoke or not, no matter what your complaint is.)

Because it's owned by Google and Facebook.

- Always yours, your Cap.

> I wonder why Go is working where the others went away from it?

Quite frankly, because Go developers don't learn from other's mistakes and reinvent square wheels.

Kernel threads will always be better and faster than usermode threads.

This is because any inefficiency in threading comes from the scheduler. Your usermode scheduler will always necessarily be slower and worse; it just makes so much sense to put your scheduling code where your context switching and process isolation code already is.

Sure, you can get a short-term gain by iterating fast and testing code if kernel developers are too slow and/or unwilling; but then eventually your code will get merged into the kernel anyways once you're done. So really usermode threads are only good as a rapid prototyping tool, not something for serious use.

Something like IPython, amirite? XD

> it is much more likely to need to represent 0.30 than 1/3

Citation needed, because this isn't really true.

Even if one concedes your (unspoken) idea that only financial transactions aren't "academic" (which also isn't true), in the real world financial transactions will typically include currency conversions, and those will have all sorts of weird non-decimal factors.

The twist: I don't. Lol.

I'm pretty sure that the idea that cholesterol causes heart attacks is fake news.

There's no such thing as a language with no exceptions.

There are only languages where exceptions need to be hand-rolled in an ad-hoc fashion.

This ad-hoc approach does not work. It gives you tiny benefit of not needing to learn a language feature. Meanwhile, ad-hoc exceptions mean that you lose all sense of modularity in your program. Real programs are composed of dozens of modules at various levels of abstraction, communicating together over multiple processes and threads. Ad-hoc exceptions in a real program in practice means 'just crash the whole thing, yolo'.

That does not work for serious programs.

> A guy who lands rocket boosters for reuse has certainly thought through the details of an underground transportation system.

Landing rocket boosters is about a thousand times easier than underground transportation.

Reusable booster tech has existed since the 1960's. It wasn't developed further for two reasons:

a) It's massively wasteful because you have to carry the fuel for the return trip.

b) The boosters need to be refurbished afterwards anyways, which is actually more expensive than building a new rocket. (More ways to screw up and less leeway for economies of scale and standardization.)

As far as I know, Musk hasn't solved these problems and isn't even planning to.

Not really. Adult goat meat stinks. (Literally, due to the male hormones.)

> It's just that too much "why" is dangerous.

You're totally right. Asking questions and thinking about things might lead you to dangerous places. You might even (gasp) eventually start believing in God. That would be doubleplus ungood crimethink!

> 8 semi-autonomous tentacles, with one sort of central coordinating body. What could it possibly be like to experience the world that way?

Humans have two semi-autonomous brain hemispheres, each with a slightly different personality.

Presumably, if this were really implemented, the way it would work would be something like this: you'd upload your legal documents to the blockchain, and sign them with your private key, your notary's/lawyer's public keys, the realtor's public keys, and the hash of the previous owner's legal documents, and so on.

But of course this isn't really a blockchain, it's just a CMS with a PKI interface.

> $110m

Probably less than the cost of one diversity training seminar for Google.

> Many of those are ruled out as modern successors (in my mind, at least), when they continue to make “the billion dollar mistake” (to use its inventor’s own words[1]) of null references.

Well, you're in luck then! You don't even need a 'modern' successor, C++ (even the ancient versions) disallow null references.

> It's too easy to call functions without being aware of the set of possible errors.

Yes, and that's a very good thing.

> Many c++ projects disable exceptions entirely.

Yes, and they're objectively wrong.

> Writing "exception safe" code is tricky and non-obvious.

The word 'exception' here is redundant.

Nobody wants an arbitrary complex program for describing some trivial build steps. A programming language here is an anti-feature.

Ideal would be some DSL that isn't even Turing complete, but that's not practical at the moment. Maybe we'll get there some day.

When people talk of UB in C++ they always mean "implementation specific".

There's a massive chasm between "works on" and "supports".

UB is an implementation issue, not a language issue. UB is a fact of life that cannot be removed by overspecifying a language -- if your language spec has too much implementation-specific stuff in it, then compiler writers will simply ignore it. Many such examples. The best you can do is to document the implementation-specific stuff extensively.

Also, implementation-specific details aren't always about maximizing performance. Compilers implement languages slightly differently because of architecture and OS differences and because it's easier that way for the people writing compilers.

"Undefined behavior" doesn't mean "buggy". It simply means stuff that's CPU-specific or compiler-specific. C++ has a standard, unlike languages like Rust or Python. This is a good thing, because compiler-specific crap doesn't magically go away if you avoid standards and just declare one implementation as a "reference".