I don't see any database that we actually care about. SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Informix.
I can't really tell if you're joking, but I think your question illustrates a different flaw in the article.
People really write about the databases you listed, because their users have an entirely different mindset. Sure people may switch from Oracle to DB2, or from SQL Server to Oracle, but some organisations just have "standard databases" that they work with. Switch would be a multi year process, and certainly not something to be advertised, unless it's: "Now with support for SQL Server" in the marketing material.
No because UNIX requires C semantics, so even if someone writes a UNIX like OS in Rust, Ada whatever language it might be, for compatibility with UNIX software it would require a POSIX API to be available. POSIX is defined in terms of C semantics, which includes C unsafety, like managing pointers and the respective length as separate entities, using null terminated strings or casting void* to specific data structures…
There used to be POSIX standards for both Ada and Fortran as well a C (POSIX.5 and POSIX.12). Though I don't think they can be described as successful. If I remember right, the Fortran one was defined in terms of the C one, but the Ada one was written as if it was an independent specification. I suppose this was only possible because POSIX misses out a lot of the fiddlier bits of Unix anyway (and the Ada one specifie…
Yes I remember those, but you still have the safety problem.
Let's say how does one make memcpy() safe in Ada? The very first step of converting the pointers + length into an access type must trust the caller did the right thing.
The research methodology in this blog post is fundamentally flawed. The author only counts how many people move from X to Y, but he doesn't count how many of them do not move at all. The whole diagonal of his (sample) transition matrix are actually missing values, but he treats them as zeroes. This greatly distorts the equilibrium distribution. As a result, he misinterprets each equilibrium probability as the "future…
At the bottom he writes, "the stationary distribution is actually independent of adding a constant diagonal (identity) matrix," but I'm not sure how that could be true (intuitively it doesn't make sense, but I don't know the math)
edit: A identity matrix wouldn't affect the stationary distribution, but if you had the actual "stay" probabilities they wouldn't all be the same, and thus not an identity matrix at all.
I don't see any database that we actually care about. SQL Server, Oracle, DB2, Informix.
I can't really tell if you're joking, but I think your question illustrates a different flaw in the article. People really write about the databases you listed, because their users have an entirely different mindset. Sure people may switch from Oracle to DB2, or from SQL Server to Oracle, but some organisations just have "standard databases" that they work with. Switch would be a multi year process, and certainly not…
I am not joking, those are the type of databases I use daily on the the programming stacks I posted in another thread.
I really appreciate his method of breaking it down per-niche. When it comes down to it, all languages are DSLs. Even LISP/Scheme are DSLs for making DSLs (like Butterick's " Beautiful Racket " earlier today). Presenting them as per-niche directed graphs is probably less likely to steer newbies (and sadly, not-so-newbies) into another round of "let's redo everything in X!"
Agreed. Nevertheless, everything will be redone in JavaScript, by the look of things.
The research methodology in this blog post is fundamentally flawed. The author only counts how many people move from X to Y, but he doesn't count how many of them do not move at all. The whole diagonal of his (sample) transition matrix are actually missing values, but he treats them as zeroes. This greatly distorts the equilibrium distribution. As a result, he misinterprets each equilibrium probability as the "future…
At the bottom he writes, "the stationary distribution is actually independent of adding a constant diagonal (identity) matrix," but I'm not sure how that could be true (intuitively it doesn't make sense, but I don't know the math) edit: A identity matrix wouldn't affect the stationary distribution, but if you had the actual "stay" probabilities they wouldn't all be the same, and thus not an identity matrix at all.
Adding a constant diagonal matrix indeed would not affect the equilibrium distribution. Mathematically, if the original transition matrix is A and you add a multiple of the identity matrix to it, then after normalisation by row sums, the new transition matrix becomes tA+(1-t)I for some 0But as you said, the stationary distribution does change if the missing diagonal is not constant. And there is no reason to believe it is constant in the first place. In the end, what the author measures is still different from what he thinks he measures.