terminalbraid

From the guilelines

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait

> For those who've built FFI wrappers in similar situations, how did you navigate this?

You talk to a lawyer who specializes in this topic. Anyone who is not a lawyer telling you anything is not to be trusted and can land you in legal trouble with no recourse.

There is literally no other discussion to be had you can trust.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

> I don't know whether the city is correct about its power to terminate the contract

They were unambiguously violating state law intended to prevent this exact scenario when they were sharing the data with the federal government. Some lawyer is going to be having a bad year and a black mark on their resume if they didn't have a statutory breach clause in the contract with a city government and even if such a clause doesn't exist there is an extremely strong case for it regardless.

They have self-inflicted a business disaster upon themselves for doing that in a state like Illinois. In the event this holds up under that legal theory every municipality in the state has a case to dump them, to say nothing of getting new contracts there and in any place that has the same values.

A lot of this seems to stem from "unit tests slow you down" vs "unit tests make you faster". Unit tests DO slow you down at the start of a project and I'm sure Uncle Bob et al would not argue against this. It will take anyone more time to write fizzbuzz with tests than without it.

It's only when you've brought together enough code or developers or overlapping features or bitrot where tests will start catching undesired changes in behavior. If the authors of the first pass of the Mozilla browser say it would have slowed them down on that initial release, I don't think anyone can credibly argue otherwise if they weren't there. I'll also let the long term stability of that browser speak for itself.

What was wrong with the proof in this case? The paper explicitly states and acknowledges the issue raised by this article before the author was aware of it. The author of the article just contends that it is an experimental issue to set up unentangled initial states which are required for the experiment, and indeed someone who was going to perform the experiment needs to convincing demonstrate the assumptions are met.

The author even admits this "is better than doing no test at all".

Long dashes in "shadow-ban–like" is a telltale sign

It's not the slowness of releases, it's the fact they don't release any stable version with just security fixes. They only make new cumulative releases. Debian's model is to fix a version for their release and do security patches on that, not to push out the latest version.

[flagged]

I find the xcode experience so awful I generally keep a few terminals with some curated nvim and other tools to make up for things like anything git-related, diffs, LLM integration, etc. (fwiw the swift LSP is also pretty good)

This isn't going to change my workflow at this point.

I'm not saying user files aren't important. What I am saying is the original poster was being hyperbolic and, while you say it's not important for your case, it is a meaningful distinction. In fact, that's why those operating systems do not allow that.

Guile is supported by conjure in neovim. It's a nice alternative to emacs, has some nice repl integration, and recently includes some autocompletions without an LSP.

https://github.com/Olical/conjure

This LSP performs reasonably well and having used it I'm not sure it's fair to call it "experimental". There's certainly some room for improvement in the code (e.g. diagnostics don't seem to run consistently with every change was the big one for me).

The greatest barrier I had with it was the installation.

As someone who has worked in and with large orgs, the better question is "why does this always happen?". In large organizations "ownership" of a product becomes more nebulous from a product and code standpoint due to churn and a focus on short-sighted goals.

If you put a lot of momentum behind a product with that mentality you get features piled on tech debt, no one gets enthusiastic about paying that down because it was done by some prior team you have no understanding of and it gets in the way of what management wants, which is more features so they can get bonuses.

Speaking up about it gets you shouted down and thrown on a performance improvement plan because you aren't aligned with your capitalist masters.

Which operating system lets an application have "free reign of all the files on the file system by default"? Neither Linux, nor any BSD, nor MacOS, nor Windows does. For any of those I'd have to do something deliberately unsafe such as running it as a privileged account (which is not the "default").

What's the guile hiccup package? Or are you confusing scheme with clojure?

Most vendors, including the big ones, don't play well with that. Google just revoked open sourcing the Pixel as the reference design which was the strongest option for that. Things like newer Samsungs are black boxes and everyone is actively making it harder to do anything with devices you bought and paid for.

How do I reconcile this with "entropy invariably increases" which is a contradiction to your hypothesis that "nature tends to favor zero-sum games"?

How do I reconcile "for every chemical and nuclear reaction, when something is gained, something else is lost" with catalysts increasing rate but not being consumed themselves?

In fact you can show there are an uncountably infinite number of broken symmetries in nature, so it is mathematically possible to concoct a parallel number of cases where nature does not have some "zero sum game" by Noether's Theorem.

Your statement is just cherry picking a few and then (uncountably infinitely) overgeneralizing.

Causality from relativity prevents this from being generally true. There could be things in this universe sufficiently far away that we cannot see because whatever interaction we could observe from it has not reached here yet.

If you're saying someone can't credibly criticize a language without having designed a language themselves, I'll ask that you present your body of work of programming language criticisms so I know if you have "produced something better" in the programming language criticism space.

Of course, by your reasoning this also means you yourself have designed a language.

I'll leave out repeating your colorful language if you haven't done any of these things.

Yes, it's consistent and complicated and non-intuitive.

"Consistent" is necessary but not sufficient for "good".

Then you seem to be fine with inconsistent ownership and a behavioral dependence on the underlying data rather than the structure.

You really don't see why people would point a definition that changes underneath you out as a bad definition? They're not arguing the documentation is wrong.

If you're fine with that then you should be upset by the subsequent example, because by your own definition "that's just not the way slices work".

Just below Go with Perl in between. All above Fortran, all below Visual Basic.

https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/

You didn't copy the code correctly from the first example.

How does someone reconcile your statement with the second part of the article where they find the LLVM source that's explicitly generating it with comments suggesting why?

I deleted and re-added the feed when I noticed it hadn't updated for some time and I have more recent articles. Not sure if something like the URL changed? You can see more recent posts directly

https://news.ycombinator.com/rss

I wish they would focus on providing a better IDE experience and fixing existing bugs (and preventing releasing bugs) and keeping up with supporting their existing tooling.

I have difficultly determining what this company wants to deliver. I know what I actually give them money for.

I don't care much for gitlab either, but for example inkscape lives there

https://gitlab.com/inkscape/inkscape

If you really think you can claim "every machine with git installed has an ssh server enabled" (and is somehow linux to boot) and that you have convinced yourself "that makes sense" I don't know what to tell you other than your experience is shockingly narrow.

I beg to differ as those, by themselves, will not give you a server as was requested. The examples upthread all include additional software, such as sshd, gitea, etc, for a reason. necessary != sufficient

My question was posed because I believe the post did not read the original request carefully.