p4bl0

Oooh! I fondly remember my N95! Pictures and movies it took were great, at least for the time, and it had apps and a lot of stuffs like a browser that were presented as new on the phone space when the first iPhone was released, while I had my N95 for almost a year at this time. Symbian was a really nice system.

This is a good introduction to Dune, but frankly, Dune kinda sucks. I mean, it is very powerful, and works very well, but it's too much of a hassle, especially for beginners. I don't want a language specific build system to require two different files to actually be usable, even on very simple projects… I still use it because it is the de facto standard, but I really preferred ocamlbuild [1], which was actually a tool that just worked without any configuration necessary for simple projects that uses standard tools. Where you would need to write a Makefile and call make, you could just write nothing and call ocamlbuild and it would just work. Dune lost that ability entirely.

[1] https://github.com/ocaml/ocamlbuild/blob/master/manual/manua...

So it's as confusing as I thought to do it that way. I wasn't sure if I thought so because I'm already familiar with all these concepts or because this introduction is indeed convoluted. Thanks for taking the time to reply!

Thanks for putting it this way. I have to admit I was really astonished by the question as I feel like HN is very much pro-AI at least in the sense that there is more AI promotion on HN than there is AI acceptance among people in the real world. It's been months if not years since most of the posts are about genAI, and in a largely favorable way. It's actually quite fascinating that for some people it feels like the opposite.

I feel like introducing lambda calculus (using JS syntax) would be less cumbersome and convoluted than referring to "the challenge" without really justifying it and deferring to respect the rules for so long. But maybe some people entirely unfamiliar with these concepts find this approach easier?

I agree with that. I'm just stating that it's contradictory with the project's own principles.

> Program directly against syscalls

It's the very first one of the listed principles. In the paragraph after this title it even says it "must" be the case in italic to insist on it, and there's a footnote to define what they mean, which is very clear in that pthreads should be out according to this principle.

First, thanks for sharing this link, it was an interesting read! A few remarks below.

I had a hard time reading the wc code in the article. First I had to go to the GitHub to understand that "da" stands for dynamic array, and then understand that what the author calls wc is not at all the wc linux commands, which by default gives you the number of lines, words, and characters in a file, not the count of occurrences of each word in the file, which is what the proposed code does.

Also, since I had to read the GitHub README, another remark: it says that sp_io uses pthreads rather than fork and exec. Both of those approach (but especially pthreads) are contradictory to the explicit goals of programming against lowest level interfaces. I believe the lowest level syscall is clone3 [1], which gives you more fine grained control on what is shared between the parent and child processes, allowing to implement fork or threads.

[1] https://manpages.debian.org/trixie/manpages-dev/clone3.2.en....

The author of this paper holds that quantum computers will never be able to go above the limit of a thousand qubits.

> Hence, insofar as a classical computer will never factor a 2,048-bit RSA integer, RaQM (rational quantum mechanics) predicts that a quantum computer will not either. This predicted breakdown of QM could be testable in less than 5 y.

People here who know about quantum computing, what do you think of this work?

The same thing happened with my blog a few weeks ago. It was well referenced for years and suddenly almost all of my entries are not indexed anymore. The Search Console indicates that the URLs were crawled but are currently not indexed, and contrary to technical problems, there nothing I can do to fix it, I just have to accept that most of my articles cannot be found via Google anymore.

EDIT: I don't actually think it is related, but now that I think of it, the timing corresponds with when I started setting up TDMRep to forbid using my content to train LLMs.

I moved my domains and mailboxes from Gandi to Infomaniak when Gandi went from "no bullshit" to full shit hole after TWS bought them. The service is top quality and their customers service was really helpful in transferring my third-level .name domain which has always been a hassle. This news makes me even more glad I chose Infomaniak.

> The goal of Search has always been simple: to help you ask anything on your mind.

I fondly remember the good old times when the goal was to help you find stuff…

Not just for LLMs, but in general if code is produced automatically by a tool and isn't going to be a hundred percent proofread and tested by humans who could have written it manually, it's always better to use the safest possible language so that the compiler can catch most of the errors. So yeah, Rust or OCaml are good candidates. Performance is also a good point but it's a secondary issue in my opinion.

Oh, since you're here, I want to say thank you for all your guides! I learned from them yeaaars ago, and still recommend them to my own students to this day, especially your network programming guide which is linked from all of the network lab session sheets of my systems and networks course. Thanks!

I teach such a course, and we don't have that. First, students must work on an existing issue of the project they choose and are only allowed (for my course) to submit an issue or a PR non related to an existing issue if they have already finished a first contribution that have been merged by the maintainers into to same project. The course grade is based on multiple factor and the code of the contribution itself is far from being the most important. The most important aspects are communication with the developers (and being respectful and polite certainly is significant) and the ability to identify and then respect the (often implicit) conventions of the project, as well as the proper use of the forge workflow for submitting a PR (fork, clone, branch, PR, discuss, etc.). Getting the contribution actually merged into the project is a neat bonus on the grade but is not required to pass the course.

Also, I totally ban using LLM, and unmotivated students often choose to work on very simple issues like easy refactoring or cosmetic aspects of web projects. It's okay with me for two reasons: first because it filters out unmotivated students from working of important issues and giving useless review work to open source maintainers, but also because we have all the other courses to do complex projects, here the point is to teach them by practice the workflow of contributing to an actual project, discussing with actual people, etc.

For some students it's already a good thing to have been able to get a copy of the latest development version of a given project, to install all of its development dependencies and tools, to compile it, and to reproduce the bug they chose to work on. It's not enough to pass the course, but it's a necessary first step to contribute to any project and it's quite a different experience from what they're used to with small school projects that are designed for teaching or that they entirely wrote themselves.

In the CS bachelor degree I'm responsible of, we have exactly that in the third and last year (it's in France, so as in ~all Europe the licence lasts three years and then students continue their studies doing a master in two years).

I've been teaching this course for ten years now, and it's been fantastic. A lot of open source contributions, mostly trivial, but some more significant than others too, have been made, to a lot of different projects. It teaches students to actually work on a real code base, using a real workflow (fork, clone, branch, commits, PR, review, commits, review, … hopefully merge), talking (in English) with maintainers, having to update tests and documentation not just code, and having to respect a lot of conventions that are not always explicitly listed anywhere (a first work that I always ask them to do is to present the project they have chosen, its tools, platforms, and languages, and to list all the programming conventions (indentation, naming, etc.) they can identify). At the end of it, it also make them realize what they can do, because at the beginning of the semester most of them think they will never be able to actually make a contribution to a real project.

This year only there were contributions to NewPipe, Cartes.app, Immich, Fossify apps, PyGameEngine, Jax, Shortcut, Wikimedia Commons App, Godot, …

Some years ago I even had students contributing to ls (yes, in the GNU core-utils).

I'm responsible for a CS bachelor degree in France (licence informatique). In our curriculum, we teach how to learn programming and then programming paradigms, not languages, and we use a lot of different programming languages for that from the first semester. At the end of the first year, our students have already approached 4 programming paradigms using ~10 different programming languages, during the second year this is reinforced by the introduction of a new paradigm (OOP) and some more advanced course using different languages (for example the introduction to functional programming in the first year mostly uses Racket, but our second functional programming course in the second year uses OCaml).

This is missing so much things that immediately comes to my mind (such as Voilà, Caramail, Multimania, Mygale, Radio.Blog.Club, Skyblog, Motion Twin's Flash games, etc.). I think those and many others are too local in the real world to be of any significance for a mostly US-centric history (my pov is based in France). Still, this brought up a lot of memories!

> We Need an Archive

This archival project already exists, it is funded by France computer science research agency Inria, by Europe, and maybe by the UN through UNESCO if I'm not mistaken, but I really think it should still receive much more attention and funding to really pursue its goal: Software Heritage.

https://www.softwareheritage.org/

Yes, that's a missing but crucial information indeed.

To be more precise about my previous message, when I say a cup I mean between 15g and 18g of beans.

I agree. I'm deep into specialty coffee and I love making and drinking coffee a lot, but three cups is already higher than what I drink on a normal day. Also, most of the time when I go above this threshold, I drink decaf.

Yes I'm only talking about wifi networks. I get that CSMA/CD itself is getting less useful, but it's because something else is doing its job, not because what it did is useless (that's why I wrote "or something similar" when I asked). Wifi is still, necessarily, a common bus where everyone talks.

Thanks. So the author's point in the linked article is wrong, it's the opposite of what they wrote. Contrary to what they say, it's indeed a bus, and it isn't the case that CSMA/CD is useless, it's that isn't enough to deal with the situation, so additions have been made to it.

Thanks for your link that helped clarifying this for me!

Thanks for sharing this very interesting read.

There's one point I don't really get and I would be glad if someone could clarify it for me. When the author says that even over wifi, the CSMDA/CD protocol is not used anymore. Then how does it actually work?

Discussing this, the author explains:

> If you have two wifi stations connected to the same access point, they don't talk to each other directly, even when they can hear each other just fine.

So, each station still has to decide at some point if what its hearing is for them or not, as it could be another station talking to the AP, or the AP talking to another station. How is that done if not using CSMA/CD (or something very similar at least)?

For what it's worth, an alternative data source [1] is being created by the DCWatch project [2].

[1] https://datacenters.hubblo.org/

[2] https://dcwatch.hubblo.org/

Damn, I got 8 points for having a sitemap! Congrats.

The TDMRep protocol [1] is supposed to tell scrappers used for text and data mining whether a ressource can be mined or not. Naively, I would say that a website which explicitly express not wanting to be included in training data would also be considered not wanting to be pulled by agents. I know it's not the same thing, but it still itches me a bit.

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/reports/tdmrep/CG-FINAL-tdmrep-...

I was coming here to link it. Glad I reloaded the page before commenting to see your comment appear.

Using an actual valid domain name for this seems crazy to me. Or, if your database system enforce the use of a valid domain name, why not use a randomly generated subdomain of a domain in your control? Something like login@RANDOMSTRING.deleteduser.yourcompany.tld is also searchable if needed and does the same thing.

They do, actually.

For example the French government has its own Matrix platform https://www.tchap.gouv.fr/ and its own Mastodon instance https://social.numerique.gouv.fr/.

Here is one of the French government: https://social.numerique.gouv.fr/