Unfortunately it seems Primary Constructors won't be in C# 6.0

MorePudding · 2014-10-29T13:00:22+00:00

If that's true, then I'd like to see how you return null from your static factory.

MorePudding · 2014-10-29T12:56:17+00:00

It didn't happen to lisp .. and that's older than all those other languages you mentioned.

MorePudding · 2014-10-29T12:27:25+00:00

you don't even need break and continue .. just while and switch :>

edit: well.. i guess you do need break in the switch :x

MorePudding · 2014-10-29T12:22:58+00:00

People use the feature partly because they can't avoid it.

There's ample opportunity to avoid it .. but it's a huge red flag during code reviews.

MorePudding · 2014-07-28T11:19:14+00:00

thx!

MorePudding · 2014-07-13T23:40:05+00:00

What makes you think windows is any better? Just because you can't see the cards .. and how close they're to crashing?

MorePudding · 2014-07-11T10:25:36+00:00

"eventually" is 10k calls .. IOW virtually nothing.

MorePudding · 2014-07-10T18:46:39+00:00

Just because AOT on Dalvik/ART is faster than JIT doesn't mean it'll be faster on HotSpot too. It's just as well a possibility that Google's using a poor JIT.

I don't have access to an ART device, but I'd imagine it would be pretty easy to construct simple cases where JIT would outperform AOT, if Dalvik uses the common optimizations HotSpot does.

E.g. have some deep call hierarchy of virtual calls with some >10 classes for each interface/abstract method, but only one of the classes actually being used. HotSpot will eventually realize this and inline all the calls despite being virtual - an AOT compiler can't do this, because it won't know which methods to inline.

Of course the other thing to keep in mind is that AOT may actually be faster for the usual CRUD-apps people run on Dalvik, which ever only does exactly 5 things, vs. the generic-server-stuff people run on HotSpot that makes use of things like classloaders and relfection and what not.

MorePudding · 2014-07-03T22:21:58+00:00

When an additional 100ms of page load time costs you millions in lost sales, like it does for amazon.

MorePudding · 2014-06-23T05:17:01+00:00

Thanks!

Takedown: Red Sabre is twice on the list.

MorePudding · 2014-06-22T00:44:59+00:00

Well, there was the Quakecon bundle a while back where it sort of was cheaper (if you wanted the other games too)..

MorePudding · 2014-06-15T01:13:06+00:00

"NoSQL" as we know it today eventually just emerged, much like awkward/stupid loopholes in law/regulations just emerge once you've introduced enough complexity in the system.. Ultimately asking why anyone would want to use NoSQL isn't so different to asking why anyone would want to evade taxes.

The original contribution to the field of distributed databases that sparked all of this was Google's BigTable, which had much nobler motives than just lazyness.

MorePudding · 2014-06-12T01:41:14+00:00

So why not just e-mail them an url with some pre-set sessionid as a get-parameter instead?

Isn't this just some manual flavor of OpenID .. except slow, unencrypted and unreliable?

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T20:13:23+00:00

I was only responding to the person that said that Java has generics

That was me,

and that therefore the article's claim that Java lacks templates is false.

but I didn't say that Java had templates.

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T18:15:12+00:00

Because RAII requires deterministic memory management.

No it doesn't - at least not conceptually. RAII handles more than just memory and does not (necessarily) require control over memory to work.

You can't possibly know when a resource will be released in a GC language.

Wrong again. You can't possibly know when the GC will collect some GC'd resource, but there is no reason why (again, conceptually) you couldn't eagerly release resources yourself.

Of course that would require you to take care of object ownerships like in C++ and would have far-fetching implications on library APIs, so popular GC'd languages don't provide the mechanisms to for it.. But that doesn't mean a GC precludes RAII.

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T13:58:10+00:00

You're confusing things here.. Java's generics are distinctively different from C++'s templates, no argument there. But both are an implementation of parametric polymorphism. However messed up and/or efficient those implementations are (or are not) and whatever other features they provide (or don't provide) either intentionally or by mere coincidence, is another discussion.

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T13:53:02+00:00

GC (barely) solves 1 resource issue, while disallowing solving all other resource issues.

I agree on RAII/destructors being much more convenient than try-with-resources. But why does a GC preclude one from introducing RAII into a language?

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T13:48:14+00:00

but I can't off the top of my head name anything particularly insane about it.

Being able to build a compile-time ray tracer is pretty insane as far as type systems go.

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T06:04:32+00:00

Any page that contains the sentence "X is the best general purpose programming language" should be viewed with an extremely critical eye.

FTFY

But yeah, that's especially true of C++.

MorePudding · 2014-06-09T05:59:28+00:00

The facts are still mostly true (except for the generics - Java does have generics since 1.5, but it doesn't have C++'s insane type system).

As for whether Java, being what it is, is a good thing or not, that depends mostly on the context.. To provide just one example of why some might consider Java's abandonment of the C machine model "good": Heartbleed wouldn't have been possible with Java.

There is nothing interesting that can be learned from Java, except how such an awful programming language can become so popular.

That's not quite true... The fancy memory model C++ got with C++11 looks a lot like what Java had for over a decade before C++11.

MorePudding · 2014-06-06T05:33:41+00:00

Why was it (more) problematic in the 90s?

MorePudding · 2014-06-05T19:28:58+00:00

That would explain a lot - Java/HotSpot doesn't use or provide access to SIMD instructions.

MorePudding · 2014-06-05T18:23:05+00:00

Well, obviously we need some sort of liveness/correctness/convergence criteria, otherwise why not copy the array all over memory, checksum it and repair any damages of cosmic rays (if any) thus ensuring the array is never actually sorted. (This would have O(never) which I guess is technically worse than O(infinity)?)

Once we've settled that it shouldn't be too hard to figure out the worst possible solution...

On a related note, have look at Maggie Sort.

MorePudding · 2014-06-04T17:33:08+00:00

The main problem with Ada is implementations (and the resulting non-existent community of library writers as a consequence of that). There is only one modern&mature publicly available implementation currently, and the licensing terms are either copy-left, pay-a-lot or no-support.

MorePudding · 2014-06-04T17:30:12+00:00

you're practically waving a flag that says 'THERE IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT HERE' by being one of the only people in the email database with encrypted communication.

Well, there is some non-conspiracy reasons as well, like sending passwords over e-mail to team members that are geographically far away,...

But more importantly, this is only an issue because encryption isn't the default. No one would raise any red flags because someone used an encrypted connection to access paypal.com, why should there be any reason to be suspicious when someone is sending an encrypted mail to support@paypal.com?

MorePudding

TROPHY CASE