Many of my python docstrings could be shorter with a Rust type system. I end up writing "mutates" or "returns copy" rather than &mut Foo.
miniblog.
Why does a Turing-complete type system make type checking undecidable? https://composition.al/blog/2017/02/27/why-does-a-turing-complete-type-system-make-type-checking-undecidable/ (Java's type checker is Turing complete!)
Google now supports searching for language syntax like === https://blog.google/products/search/improvements-searching-special-characters-programming-languages/ (handy for infix heavy PLs like Scala or Haskell)
I don't see any value in an Optional type with a dynamic type system. AFAICS you can only avoid NPEs with a static or gradual type checker.
Emacs C has lots of sizeof(struct)*CHAR_BITS. Explicit is good, but I doubt many users have CHAR_BITS != 8.
Zig is an elegant little C alternative with little difference between compiletime and runtime:
Remacs is coming to EVM! https://github.com/rejeep/evm/pull/81 (provides several nice benefits, such using Travis to check your project works w/ remacs)
Post mortem of the S3 outage is now available: https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/ (aviation does this regularly, it is good for our industry too)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er_lLvkklsk is an incredible demo of the barliman tool generating useful programs. (19m in shows an amazing hole based workflow)
What do you find easier to refactor, and why?
Some of our development techniques have research supporting their effectiveness, but others do not (despite advocates). Are they placebos?
Fascinating, terrifying explanation of how numeric computation can vary depending on when data is in a register:
Is bug fixing a skill with an upper limit of what's possible? If not, how we ensure our skills keep improving?
A really helpful analogy: dynamic programming is bottom-up memoisation:
TIL the Ruby interpreter exposes ObjectSpace to normal Ruby code, so you can do things like iterate over all classes
Showing 736-750 of 885 posts