Could you just call these “interactive programs”?

Sure, it's just a bit of an "old" term that I wasn't sure the young'uns on HN would understand :)

Isn’t a JavaScript engine interactive ?

No regular user interacts directly with a JavaScript engine, not in the sense that they interact with a text editor, a video editor, an audio editor, a CAD application, a medical imaging application etc. etc. etc.

> - Retire SQL Server in favor of PostgreSQL compatibility. Provide a first-class SQL Server compatibility layer on Postgres rather than maintaining a separate database.

Do you have any idea how much more advanced SQL Server is than Postgres?

> Do you have any idea how much more advanced SQL Server is than Postgres?

In some ways. I'm also aware some SQL Server DBA's think that shipping log files around via SMB is an efficient form of SQL database replication. So YMMV.

There's a pretty fundamental difference: TDD is about avoiding up-front design, while formal specification literally is up-front design.

I think the article still sells formal specification a bit short in a few areas:

- A formal spec can be used to derive randomly generated tests attempting to find counterexamples to spec invariants (which the article hinted at but didn't describe explicitly)

- A formal spec can be used as input to a model checker, which will try to find counterexamples to spec invariants via bounded exploration of the model's state space

- A formal spec can be used to find spec invariant violations by analyzing traces from production systems

What all these examples have in common is that they attempt to falsify, not verify, that the spec accurately describes the desired design properties or the actual implementation. That tends to be much more feasible than an actual proof.

io_uring makes synchronous syscalls async simply by offloading them to a pool of kernel threads, just like people have done for decades in userspace.

It's not the async part, it's the not invoking the function part - io_uring replaces syscalls with producer consumer ring buffers.

If that were true then presumably Microsoft wouldn't have ported it to Windows:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/ioringap...

Although Windows registered network I/O (RIO) came before io_uring and for all I know might have been an inspiration:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/...

That argument holds no water. IOUring is essential for the performance of some modern POSIX programs.

You can see shims for fork() to stop tanking performance so hard too. IOUring doesnt map at all onto IOCP, at least the windows subtitute for fork has “ZwCreateProcess“ to work from. IOUring had nothing.

IOCP is much nicer from a dev point of view because your program can be signalled when a buffer has data on it but also with the information of how much data, everything else seems to fail at doing this properly.

The CQE for e.g. a successful read(2) operation will have the number of bytes read in the `res` field.

Do your pets give you consent for everything you do with them?

This changes absolutely nothing about how I use sci-hub. As long as I can find the front page and search for a DOI, I don't care how many search results Google censors.

I don’t buy that LLMs won’t make off-by-one or memory safety errors, or that they won’t introduce undefined behavior. Not only can they not reason about such issues, but imagine how much buggy code they’re trained on!

Ada's these days is more about politics than technology.

What kind of politics? I mean, what do they sell, little to no tech books?

Just go see for yourself?

Not living in the US, so cannot.