71–80 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That bubble's gonna pop eventually, I don't foresee it staying around for 10+ more years.
What do you think will stop artificial intelligence from becoming a closer and closer approximation of human intelligence?
That said, AI is here to stay.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX_3#Reduce_kernel_size
EDIT: Yes, Linux kernel slowly approaches point when gigabyte of source is a long gone story of a past. I doubt there anybody out there who can say they actually understand the whole of it. And this is probably bad for a lot of reasons, of which being not accessible to a beginner is one of the smallest concern.
EDIT2: Even more so for hardware which is harder to investigate under the hood and probably much less understood - when was the last time when you could claim to have inner mental model of your computer and software on it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, for understanding why Rust is the way it is, you need to suffer through memory leaks and eg. buffer overflows, segfaults, lack of strict typing, etc. Same with most frameworks I know, regardless of where in the stack. That's why I believe Java is a bad educational language, and Donald Knuth uses MIX assembly in his books.
That's like saying, "to understand why the automobile is valuable, you need to suffer through a horse and carriage". You don't need to suffer through yesterday's problems to understand today's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, for understanding why Rust is the way it is, you need to suffer through memory leaks and eg. buffer overflows, segfaults, lack of strict typing, etc. Same with most frameworks I know, regardless of where in the stack. That's why I believe Java is a bad educational language, and Donald Knuth uses MIX assembly in his books.
That's like saying, "to understand why the automobile is valuable, you need to suffer through a horse and carriage". You don't need to suffer through yesterday's problems to understand today's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterexample: Rust compiler is written in Rust.
Doesn't Rust compilation rely on LLVM for all the actual compilation from IR to machine code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then we need a 'safe' language that has the performance characteristics of C or assembly. Not there yet?
Fortran, Ada, Rust, D, and more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fortran, Ada, Rust, D, and more.
I feel that without the unreasonable hype behind rust nobody would even mention safety.
*Also, though I now contradict myself because they preceded Java, the inspirations for Rust's more formal/statically-checked memory model: C++'s RAII and STL.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thing is, for understanding why Rust is the way it is, you need to suffer through memory leaks and eg. buffer overflows, segfaults, lack of strict typing, etc. Same with most frameworks I know, regardless of where in the stack. That's why I believe Java is a bad educational language, and Donald Knuth uses MIX assembly in his books.
That's like saying, "to understand why the automobile is valuable, you need to suffer through a horse and carriage". You don't need to suffer through yesterday's problems to understand today's.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counterexample: Rust compiler is written in Rust.
Doesn't Rust compilation rely on LLVM for all the actual compilation from IR to machine code?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not like it requires C to implement a new language.
This is a remarkably common belief and it bugs me to no end. I don't know why, but many people have developed this conviction that C is required for computers to work, that that's the baseline of computation. This comes from both novices and experts . I haven't figured it out.