71 karma · joined August 10, 2017
Rust has no undefined behavior because it only supports one CPU and has only one compiler implementation.
When Rust supports a dozen architectures and has three different compiler implementations then Rust will be just as full of UB as C++. Except with the added "bonus" of all the UB being brand-new and unspecified, unlike the well-known portability pitfalls of C++.
The type system is 90% of programming language design effort.
This is like releasing a car without a 'comprehensively designed engine'.
'Why' is what they should really answer.
This is not minutae. This is a test if you understand the theory behind ownership semantics.
Nobody wants their home or their datacenter machines exposed to the whole Internet all the time.
NAT is a feature, not a bug.
For example, I know a heavily right-brained person, and when he reads a book, instead of the intuitive sequential pattern (even page-odd page-even-odd-even-odd) he may read it in a zig-zag (even-even-odd-odd-even-even).
The analogy is synchronous processing (left brain) vs multithreaded (right brain).
On the other hand, right-brained people seem to have problems doing 'obvious' things like finishing chores in order, telling left from right or positioning something on a blank page.
Yes, there really is, but the way it's described in American media is a load of crap. I don't think anybody published actual real science about this in English.
The logical/creative dichotomy is bullshit based on fake science.
In reality the left brain (dominant for most people) prefers sequential, step-by-step thinking, while the right brain prefers simultaneous and spatial thinking.
Math professionals are actually biased towards right brain people. (It's hard to get anywhere in real math using step-by-step algorithms.)
It is a no-brainer decision from a game theoretic point of view: these companies already have a top-of-the-line, best in the world product. Working on more products requires lots of inspiration, time and luck, and even in the best case all you get is just another amazing product. (I.e., just more of the stuff you already got.)
Using your money and fame to neutralize talent that could be used against you requires no effort or thinking at all, only money. These companies don't know what to do with their profits anyways.
Two benefits: them not working productively at a competitor's place is one, and them losing the skills and drive to make real-world useful things after a few years is another.
And you get a warm, wet rock.
Statistics, probability theory and physics don't work like that. You can't arrive at the conclusion by stating a premise and wishful thinking.
What engineering brilliance? Their only non-trivial product is search, and it sucks and keeps getting suckier every year.
Their ad business is no better than the competitors.
I don't know how old you are, but those of us over 20 remember that we had '12 years' 20 years ago.
Somehow the prophesied catastrophe never arrives and the date gets perpetually pushed into the future. Looks like a secular Seventh Day Adventists.
Currencies have value only because governments force everyone to use them for paying taxes and welfare.
Your 'tokens-as-shares' vision is flawed, because at the end of the day it devolves into a million little barter schemes, and barter sucks. (As we discovered back in the bronze age.)
The only place where blockchain could provide a use is with smart contracts. If you've experienced buying or selling real estate, then you understand how insanely inefficient low-trust, high-value deals can be. Anything that removes this friction would be a great boon.
Writing a binary-to-string converter sucks. You write code once, and debug it every day. Anything that makes debugging harder is humongous pain that shouldn't exist; binary-to-string converters can be written, but let's be real for a moment: this is something that is dead last on the list of business priorities. If your message can be parsed with ad-hoc shell or Python scripts, that's a huge win for everyone.
Here in 2018, we still have to roll our own.
Libnop has the right idea, but still fails on two important points:
a) Versioning is a must-have feature. (And no, some weird non-standard 'table' type is not a replacement.)
b) The wire protocol needs to be human-readable ASCII. (Or at least a human-readable ASCII with no performance degradation option must be available.)
Of course I don't, nobody does.
CDN's can help with this somewhat, but a server-to-server network connection will still always be better and faster.
Really? If that's an example of 'failing', I'd like to see what success looks like.
So, std::unordered_map?
It is. Online, you can use statistics and probability theory to actually test what's more profitable instead of relying on ad-hoc metrics about what "feels good".
> They chase you around the web, even for products you already decided you didn’t want
These are a small minority of online ads. They're displayed in places where nothing more profitable or contextual can be displayed. (I.e., most websites, since most websites are junk.)
Any sufficiently old systems programming language that aims for simplicity and clean code will eventually devolve into a variant of C++, except ad-hoc and poorly specified.
Devil's advocate: why not a maximum integer like 18446744073709551615 or 9223372036854775807?
0 looks like a valid number, while 18446744073709551615 is an obvious NaN for any programmer looking at the output.
Just no. The very point of cooperative games is learning to work together as a team. If you can't do that, then you lost the game. Ruining the rules so the game can't be lost is counterproductive.