101–110 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well Julien Verlaguet is the original author of SkipLang, so "proprietary fork" does not deserver the square quotes, IMO
Citation to indicate what he was responding to, not scare quotes.
I've started doing that in exactly this fashion `>*quote*\n`, precisely to avoid the er, mention/disparage distinction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too would prefer := or even =!
or <= which vhdl does (it differentiates between variables and signals so it uses both := and <=)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't work if one of the arguments gets mutated
Different arguments would provide a different result, wouldn’t it?
Do you compare the pointer for equality, or do you follow it and deep-compare what’s on the other side?
What about the next pointer jump? What if there’s a class instance? What if there’s a reference cycle?
Python lets you implement custom logic in __eq__() to manually bridge some of these gaps, but doing that for everything can get out of hand. Also, deeply-traversing large objects to check equality can get arbitrarily expensive. Immutable structures simplify these comparisons (just compare everything as a value, any change will mean a new pointer), but obviously introduce certain constraints.
By tracking observed properties of mutable structures at runtime, and then publishing cache invalidations only when they change, you can:
- Do no extra work to know whether or not a cache has been invalidated
- Automatically and perfectly track everything the function “cares about”
- Track only the things it cares about, so changes to properties it doesn’t actually use won’t invalidate the cache
See the MobX docs for more (I’m not closely familiar with Skip directly, but from what I’ve seen it works on very similar principles): https://mobx.js.org/understanding-reactivity.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, whats your point? Does that change anything?
For starters, the first "test" was bogus: grantparent said "front page", but parent tried the naked domain (which Mazda doesn't intent to be the front page).
Do you work for Mazda, or else how do you know? Is this intent published on the real site somewhere, which is what the user is trying to find in the first place when they try mazda.com?
Maybe this is just some webmaster that needs to have their ass fired.
Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do. I just tried half a dozen multinational corporations that are associated with well-known consumer brands, they all have a page at .com or redirect to one. It is not in any way "bogus" to try that.
The mazda.com page doesn't even provide a clue as to where the expected site actually is; that's what is "bogus". For a second I was wondering whether Mazda actually own the domain, or is that someone squatting (yet using a Mazda logo favicon).
Not to have a page there which redirects the user to the real one, and just a permission error, comes across as astonishingly unprofessional, especially for a company of the proportions of Mazda. (If it was Uncle Bob's Pizza down the street, I might not think so as much.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For starters, the first "test" was bogus: grantparent said "front page", but parent tried the naked domain (which Mazda doesn't intent to be the front page).
> Mazda doesn't intent Do you work for Mazda, or else how do you know? Is this intent published on the real site somewhere, which is what the user is trying to find in the first place when they try mazda.com? Maybe this is just some webmaster that needs to have their ass fired. Trying "mazda.com" for Mazda is the obvious thing for a user to do. I just tried half a dozen multinational corporations that are associated…
That used to be the case, but I would argue strongly that it is no longer. Now the obvious and normal thing to do is type "Mazda" into a search engine. In the USA, mazdausa.com is the top hit. (And Wikipedia is second.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
or <= which vhdl does (it differentiates between variables and signals so it uses both := and <=)
What's stopped me from using this syntax in the past is that it means LTE in basically any language I can think of. One can certainly design a grammar where it's unambiguous, I have in fact, but it still doesn't look right to me.
It’s not like memoisation and thunks are new features. What has this language added in this space I can’t do in say Haskell? >written by a bunch of html/js developers Ah so because they have rediscovered something it’s meant to be revolutionary?
Then I wondered if this was already implemented for some functional languages. Then I read your comment.
It was quite the ride.
A whole homepage about a programming language, and nowhere on the page does it show the programming language. :-/
Why is seeing the syntax of a programming language so interesting? I think that syntax is one of the least interesting aspects of a programming language.