Zx 3.0

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 2:50 PM UTC

rurban wrote: post #90

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #72

As annoying as having to write "await" in front of everything is (probably should have a variant of $ that's synchronous), the ability to effortlessly implement parallelism is something that all other common scripting (and many "full") languages seem to lack. Even Go, that prides itself on the good support for parallelism, fails once you actually want go get results back. If this were paired with some way to also dis…

using sh is usually preferred: somecmd & someothercmd & wait runs the two commands in parallel and waits for both. no need for await. to run in serial replace & with && and skip the wait

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 2:57 PM UTC

q3k wrote: post #91

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #72

As annoying as having to write "await" in front of everything is (probably should have a variant of $ that's synchronous), the ability to effortlessly implement parallelism is something that all other common scripting (and many "full") languages seem to lack. Even Go, that prides itself on the good support for parallelism, fails once you actually want go get results back. If this were paired with some way to also dis…

> Even Go, that prides itself on the good support for parallelism, fails once you actually want go get results back. It's doable if you're willing to build a very thin abstraction over whatever you're trying to parallelize keeping in mind all possible edgecases [1] and how you'd like to handle them. A generic `run N things in parallel and collect their results` function would be nice, but would probably end up being…

    foo, bar, []err := await getFoo(), getBar()
    if len(err) > 0 {
      return nil, nil, fmt.Errorf("Frobnication failed: %s", err)
    }
    return foo, bar, nil

Post by skybrian » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 3:20 PM UTC

inshadows wrote: post #95

codewiz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't correct: if a Googler writes some code from scratch, which is unrelated to their work, on their personal time, and using their personal laptop... then it's definitely not owned by Google. There could be gray areas where code ownership could be disputed, but in general your employer owns only the intellectual property it paid for. Source: I'm a Googler (until next month).

OK. So the things under google GitHub organization are personal projects for which googlers didn't bother to get the permission?

Post by ilyash » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 3:33 PM UTC

jitl wrote: post #57

satyanash wrote: post #21

I personally find Ruby's built-in shell features more ergonomic: `cat package.json | grep name` branch = `git branch --show-current` `dep deploy --branch=#{branch}` if $?.success? [ "sleep 1; echo 1", "sleep 2; echo 2", "sleep 3; echo 3", ].map { |cmd| Thread.new { %x(cmd) } }.each(&:join) name = 'foo bar' `mkdir /tmp/#{name}` if $?.success?

What I don’t like about backticks in Ruby is that they “ignore” errors in commands you run. It’s up to the program author to remember to check $? for the last executed command’s exit status. And guess how many times the average Ruby script using this feature implements error handling? Usually it’s totally forgotten. To be safe, abstractions that make it easy to shell out must also: - escape all variable interpolation…

Post by laurent123456 » Mon, Aug 16, 2021, 3:38 PM UTC

otabdeveloper4 wrote: post #92

> await await await await Oh yeah, right, because the first thing that comes to mind when writing bash scripts is "I sure wish there was more 'await' noise in all this code!" Anyways: 'async' in the Python and Javascript sense was a mistake, future generations will think we were insane to adopt it. https://journal.stuffwithstuff.com/2015/02/01/what-color-is-...