Agree. ThePrimeagen had something to say about this on one of his streams, responding to someone who said "The programming language doesn't matter, only the programmer." He said something like "If that were true, let's just all go back to writing C, it's pretty good. But then you'd say 'well not exactly...'"
I think they meant the stack doesn’t matter in the sense of “which stack you choose from the options available”, rather than “whether you choose a stack versus writing machine code”.
You can hook into the abi for software that runs in Linux trivially. So why isn't machine code acceptable? When you give the honest answer you see why the majority of languages aren't acceptable either.
That's not a good faith interpretation given the near infinite amount of options for conjuring up your favourite moneyprinting system of choice besides "machine code". SBCL is about the most arcane option you can pick and even that can work, which I think actually proves the point: it doesn't matter to any significant degree (anymore).
How else is one meant to read that language doesn't matter?
You can hook into anything that runs in Linux since it's abi is rock solid so the excuse of not being able to use the usual tech stacks doesn't hold water either.
You can use RoR, .NET, SBCL, Python, Erlang and 6502 assembly if you so desire. Sure “machine code” is one option, but that doesn’t engage with the argument in any meaningful way IMO.
This is the point where you need to check your privilege. I used tor when living in a dictatorship to find out things which would destroy the moral fabric of society, such as information about lgbtqia+ issues, what condoms are, pop music and news that the government didn't want to spread.
I'm sorry you had to live through that, and I'm glad you had tools to subvert that oppression. I'm relieved that it sounds like you've escaped from that situation.
It was not my intent to assert any privilege, and it was my intent to acknowledge that scenario. If I may provide some clarification:
Marriam webster[0] defines 'double edged sword' to mean
> something that has or can have both favorable and unfavorable consequences
The use of Tor in the scenario you describe is one of the two blades (edges) I was referring to in my use of 'double bladed sword' -- the altruistic use case for which Tor absolutely should exist
The other side of the blade however, it's also used to facilitate terrible acts of abuse, notably to children (as demonstrated by the article) -- the destructive use case for which Tor absolutely should not exist.
It leaves Tor in a morally ambiguous place to me. It's not inherently bad or good. There are situations where it can be used for great good, and others when it can be used for great evil. Those situations would exist with or without Tor. I don't know if I should be thanking anyone maintaining it any more than I would thank an arms dealer.
There is no such thing as running a relay in freenet. Every user is the same as every other. The size and traffic of your node is literally a setting on the gui. All traffic and data are encrypted so you have no idea what's living on your node and what's coming in and out. That's the whole point of freenet.
I don’t think he is claiming he ran a relay and could see the traffic passing through it. Just that he had a good idea what moved about on the network from following random links as he explored it - popular stuff would load fast, non-popular would be slow. He found out what was popular.
Actors in Elixir (and AFAIK the Actor Model in general) can mutate their internal state in response to receiving a message. It would probably be awkward to use actors in this way just to facilitate mutation though.
(define lol
(let ((a 0))
(lambda ()
(set! a (+ a 1))
a)))
Scheme is a functional programming language in the same way python is. The only difference is that it has tail call optimisation and the stack doesn't have an arbitrary limit on the number of function calls it can hold.
Upper management has their own offices. Of course they don't understand what open offices are like. It's like planes, they only suck if you're in economy class, first and business are great. Why would you want to fly faster when you have an actual bed?
I hate flying. Never flew 1st class but have flown business class a few times. It helps very much for sure. There's no comparison between peasant class and business.
That said, it's still a crappy experience for me. There's the commute to and from the airport. There's the waiting, which is not good even if you have access to good lounges. There's more waiting, sometimes for many hours, if you're making connections. Finally, and the worst of all for me, there's noise, crappy toilets and especially the low pressure in the cabin which makes everything in my body ache.
My own office would be a clear and obvious improvement over a shared seat in an open plan. It would still not be anywhere near as good as my home office.
I never really had an issue with passport queues. Most airports I travel through have automated gates and it takes literally seconds to get through. When there's a queue, it's usually no more than 1-5 people getting through 5-10 gates so it takes no time at all.
Changing class won't make any of the issues I pointed out better, with the possible exception of the toilets.
I do agree that the "rising tide raises all boats" rhetoric is largely bunk. But I don't think that this one particular measure, taken at an anomalous time, is sound footing for a counterargument.
That’s mostly due to obesity, which is a consequence of the quantity and (flavor) quality of food getting better over time; a side effect of economic prosperity.
Obesity is a side effect of having so much food that calories are cheap and plentiful. That’s why obesity rates are rising everywhere in the first world. It’s also something virtually unprecedented in human history.
Types slow you down. New work is first completed in untyped languages. People start using the work. People complain there aren't types. Types are added. Work is now slow in the language. New work is now done in another language without types.
“Types slow you down” is the _stupidest_ excuse I hear all the time.
As if developers of untyped languages don’t spend ungodly amounts of time pretending types don’t exist, but needing to manually check them everywhere, wonder why shit blows up at runtime, litter their code with “typeof” style checks, litter their tests with type checking.
The types exist and need to be considered whether you believe it or not. Might as well let the computer help you out.
There are maybe some programs where "time to first run" is a critical metric. But where I sit we spend way way way way more time living with a program after it has already been written. This means maintenance, bugfixes, and refactors.
Even if what you say is true, I'll trade some initial coding time to buy more efficient maintenance.
I dunno, I think the productivity promises of dynamic typing have been conclusively disproven, so maybe next time people will be able to at least say "we know that isn't a good idea".
Maybe there is an argument there for non-programmers in technical fields, that use programming at their jobs, but it isn't their primary job. Like a data scientist or architect, trying to use something convenient and easy. The problem is, that usually it catches up with them (and with bigger programs), in terms of poor quality code and bad habits. The argument then becomes if they should have learned better practices and habits in the first place. Sometimes what seems like a shortcut, is not really so.
that might have been true in the 2000s, but it doesn't apply to modern languages with things like generics, ADTs, type inference, null safety, etc.
you know what really slows me down? trying to use a function in a dynamic language, and having no god damned clue what type of arguments it accepts, and having to figure it out by grepping through the code or dynamically instrumenting a running program.
I think its more along the lines of things are prototyped without types, the proof of concept mostly works, then people realize that types are needed to reduce bugs, improve speed, and create a maintainable base as the project grows. What people should do is rewrite from scratch using the prototype as a vague guide, but instead people try to desperately fix the prototype incrementally. Its not the types that makes things slow, its the size of the codebase, and the lack of expectations on quality and performance.
To see the difference use some function counter() instead of 1 in the example.