81–90 of 254 posts
I don't know much about Tor. But I hope I can route all of my home network traffic through it. That or route everything through VPN. I'll bet you can guess why I'm suddenly interested.
Founder of https://easyvpnrouter.com/ ask me anything or how to build one yourself if you want a project
Also, what about the Netflix issue?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So was Erlang. The language, the runtime, and the standard library were all purpose-built together to solve a real world problem... to build fault-tolerant, distributed network applications. Which makes Go's rapid popularity as a language for solving the same problem even more peculiar. Especially since Go's surrounding tracing, debugging, and online code swapping facilities are so much worse. I'm sure some component…
> So was Erlang. The language, the runtime, and the standard library were all purpose-built together to solve a real world problem... to build fault-tolerant, distributed network applications. I'm probably outing myself as the lord regent of all impostor plebs, but Erlang is not IMO an approachable language regardless of its origins. Put differently : it looks completely nuts. I'm sure there's a method to the madness…
Elixir by comparison is significantly more complicated, but the fact that it looks tacitly like Ruby is apparently very attractive.
I suspect I could sit down with you for an hour and remove all the weirdest seeming bits which feel alien. Such that the rest of it would just feel like any other programming language, and you'd be able to immediately start dissecting and understanding other people's code.
Part of the problem with Erlang (again an evangelism problem) is that there's not much in the way of attractive and we'll structured on-boarding documentation. It's mostly really simple. It's just that the Erlang docs seem to go to great lengths to obfuscate that fact. In large part because they don't do anything to intentionally build "background schema" with the reader by drawing comparisons to similar things they're probably already familiar with in other ecosystems.
As a mere average user of computer languages, every time I play around with Go I start wondering how a language like this became so popular. It feels like it was invented in a universe where Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, Smalltalk, Lisp and so many more languages and research in languages never happened.
Sometimes I think the syntactical difference of functional languages alone is the reason they're unpopular. Iterative languages seem to match more closely how people speak/think in verbal language.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest, you can probably also pick up Lisp in a weekend, experienced programmer or not. The syntax is also simpler.
But all those parentheses! I know it sounds like a lame reason to dislike a language, but I've always found staring at Lisp to be so much more difficult and distracting than C-style syntax.
printf("Hello world");
(printf "Hello world")
if (var == 2) {
do_something1 ();
} else {
do_something2 ();
}
(if (= var 2)
(do_something1)
(do_something2)
)
As a mere average user of computer languages, every time I play around with Go I start wondering how a language like this became so popular. It feels like it was invented in a universe where Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, Smalltalk, Lisp and so many more languages and research in languages never happened.
If you're used to dynamic languages, it gives you type safety and performance for little effort. I love Python but always wished for a simple, type-safe language; Go gives me that. It's not worse than Python IMHO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
you can, but it's not really nice, because TOR is relatively slow, it only makes sense for heavily text based sites and not images/video etc.
*This and almost every CDN starts popping up 'Captchas' atleast the last time I tried.. I find it easier to setup a VPN server and use one.
I am curious why they were advised not to use Go. Probably not a safety concern. Edit: cgo != Go. Thanks for the responses. I have done a bit of Go, but just pure Go.
They were advised against cgo. In my not so recent experience, it is a huge PITA.
As a mere average user of computer languages, every time I play around with Go I start wondering how a language like this became so popular. It feels like it was invented in a universe where Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, Smalltalk, Lisp and so many more languages and research in languages never happened.
> As a mere average user of computer languages, every time I play around with Go I start wondering how a language like this became so popular. You can pick it up in a weekend. A lower entry bar means more people will try it out. > It feels like it was invented in a universe where Haskell, OCaml, Erlang, Smalltalk, Lisp and so many more languages and research in languages never happened. It was developed in a large en…
> You can pick it up in a weekend. A lower entry bar means more people will try it out.
... and then you get the JavaScript situation where everyone thinks they're an actual programmer at $TEAM_LEAD level of sophistication when it comes to modeling, design, architecture, testing and implementation... but they're really not. It's not their fault per se, it's just that they do not have the necessary experience to realize the areas that they're lacking in. (This is a well-known cognitive bias: More than 50% of people think that they're an above-average driver. There are a precious few who realize that they're not -- they are the exception.)
Programming is hard[1] and if there was an instant-humbling device, I'd buy it in spades.
[1] Most people focus on the "oh, that's Undefined Behavior" bits of it, but it's not really about that. It's about recognizing the types of mistakes that you make and working to avoid them or creating a system that does, whether that's by testing or proof or whatever. Obviously it still has to be _practical_, but AGAIN... it's about tradeoffs. If you don't care about correctness, I'm pretty sure I can whip up a "solution" to any problem that's fast as hell... and not correct. Summa summarum: I think we need to be thinking a lot more in terms of tradeoffs and not so much in absolutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) Two words: "begin" and "end"; 2) Unix, C is so fundamental to building software, that I think any language that doesn't share syntax with it is doomed. Having a common syntax helps in learning new languages, IMO, and can also be a launching point for differing semantics...
I'll give you it's overly verbose even though quite a bit of it was justifiable. The theory of Ada's designers was that people read software more than write it. So, the syntax should be designed to facilitate catching errors in maintenance mode, during extensions, or during integrations. It's done phenomenal at that per industrial, case studies despite having been invented in the 80's when lots of language decisions…
You mean Rust I think ;)