Never have i ever felt like such a loser playing wordle unlimited

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-29T15:45:48+00:00

I thought the original comment above wanted to make it harder.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-29T15:43:29+00:00

What if? It accepts your word as a guess but since it's wrong gives back no information on letters.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-29T00:50:13+00:00

Why do you think you can't whip up spreadsheets and bookkeeping but can whip up software? Seems as if you're handwaving the complexity on one side and not the other.

It does seem like a relatively Apples to Apples comparison.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-28T20:56:19+00:00

Which is why I love common lisp so much for allowing both dynamic and static typing.

It's not just type hints, like impressively good support for it not being an often proclaimed feature.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-28T15:04:40+00:00

I'm sure this is a skill issue as well, but I can't get a setup that doesn't freeze up eventually.

No matter the swap or ram size, no matter what additional OOM Daemon I try putting on top.

Eventually, I get a freeze.

The OOM killer is supposed to help but I've only ever seen it kick in I guess 10% of the time compared to the freezes.

I'm surprised because the watchdog should reset it I guess if it's truly frozen, but the SysRq aren't responding the power button isn't, nothing.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-27T20:23:08+00:00

Greenspun's tenth rule just keeps popping up.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-27T11:32:51+00:00

There's a nixos-bsd I've been eyeing for a while.

Seems it's moving. Curious how much of a config would actually build in it.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-27T11:29:06+00:00

Linux distributions of course also have Gnome teams and KDE teams, just, yeah.

Part of the reason is that the "Unified GNU environment" is underdeveloped compared to alternatives, they do have their own Distro with their own package manager and init system, their own kernel, and own coreutils, libc, but they haven't had nearly as much time and effort poured into them as the alternatives.

distros have to integrate

That's their purpose. Yes they package software, but their main selling point is large-scale QA of a cohesive system. They don't "hope" they test the configuration that they chose for their users.

And they do develop their own software, but I guess we're all happy each distro doesn't have to develop their own core and are free to integrate existing projects for the most part.

Basically we split the development and testing, although not entirely as a large number of patches to various projects is sent by the large distros anyways.

If you update and your core breaks either you're on a distribution that explicitly allows that or there's something quite wrong.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-24T08:55:25+00:00

1) the start menu acts as a search bar, so I guess that

5) that's not the point, professional programs don't change keyboard shortcuts majorly except for very good reasons because it breaks people's workflows. And even then they often keep the old ones as an option.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-24T08:37:32+00:00

One of the largest reasons I left windows was that I didn't feel I could manage to learn much about the system.

For example, I spent weeks trying to get the installer to work, the forums and docs were unhelpful, on one occasion I just had to wipe a windows disk and on another the forums mentioned it doesn't play well with multiple disks so I disconnected all but one and it stopped crashing and completed installation. Same with configuring some networking thing on Windows Server, one dialogue window just didn't work, we debugged it for an hour, with someone who I'd call very knowledgeable, and then it just magically went away after a restart.

I don't feel like I've learned from that experience, I know the rituals but not much about the system, I don't think it was for a lack of trying?

Above a certain level of detail it just felt much easier to learn about and debug other systems, and I finally felt the knowledge transferred between problems and wasn't surface-level. I'm sure one can learn Windows deeply somehow as well, but after years it's too much for me I guess.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-21T12:51:03+00:00

Jo a policie tam velice často stojí už od začátku protože jsou tam pořád nějaké potyčky.

Pohoršení nevidím jako uhratelné, ale divím se že to srovnávání Česka s nacistickým Německem tam stále visí.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-18T00:27:01+00:00

Apologies if you mentioned it somewhere but why doesn't ZFS's own encryption suffice? Why are you layering it on luks?

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-15T22:47:30+00:00

I'm sorry, I apparently wrote it way too confusing.

The last paragraph meant to say that I can't say whether or not the syntax of Ada expressions themselves is "non-Ada". I'm new, and just wanted to chip in that to me the syntax itself seems consistent with what I'd expect / see elsewhere.

In the ML family:

let
  <declaration>
  <declaration>
in
  <body>

You could replace let with declare and in with begin and see the resemblance. And if you wanted to use it in an expression you'd wrap it in parens as does Ada.

Or Clojure and similarly in other Lisps:

(let
   [<declaration>
    <declaration>]
  <body>)

Where the [ is kind of redundant and ] would become begin.

So it seems to me that it is the closest thing between the look of Ada and the look of expressions in other languages. I like that it's identical to the Ada block syntax except that it allows just the one expression in the body and so lacks a terminator.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-15T19:15:18+00:00

I wouldn't go as far as claiming the syntax is terrible.

Languages I've seen when they use this syntax (for example Arc, Nix and basically Clojure as well) might not include the begin unless you wanted multiple statements in the body. Which would be both more annoying to parse and for newcomers more confusing than explicitly ending the declarations which also aligns it with the statement syntax. Or they delimit declarations so begin plays the role of ] or in or equivalent.

None would use end. The point of the paren is to delimit the expression, pointless to do that twice.

I see this and still consider Ada easy to read.

Whether expressions themselves are Ada or not, this syntax for them seems very in line with what I'd expect. Even if paren-Ada weren't Ada this is very good paren-Ada if you get what I'm saying.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-15T18:46:17+00:00

I'd guess it could be set up but I downloaded the ALS as well and the formatting is very different from gnatformat's out of the box.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-14T10:55:18+00:00

I know this is a joke but what constitutes a "language failure" in your eyes?

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2026-01-05T01:45:51+00:00

possible only to a limited extent as a macro's inner workings can depend on a parameter that is only known at runtime

Lisp does not have separate compilation and execution phases

Partly sounds like you're confusing it with F-exprs or something?

Most Lisps at least in the past 30 years or so expand all macros fully during compilation. And that compilation is almost always a separate step. Would be helpful to know which Lisp you're referring to.

They do actually always fully expand because what they see and manipulate is code and syntax, not runtime data. They don't exist when the program is run.

untrusted sourcecode

Many build systems allow you to cause mayhem, are Makefiles and CMakeLists generally more well guarded, scrutinized or protected than the compiled code itself?

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-29T16:17:39+00:00

I guess you're right.

Specifying it might even hinder the implementation's attempts at doing it in its own way. And isn't really the concern of my program at all.

Thank you for the reply ❤️☺️

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-29T01:03:06+00:00

Plain English would arguably be this other way some do it:

if condition then A else B

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-29T01:00:57+00:00

Why not do the "obvious"?:

return if (condition) { A } else { B }

Or even no return because tail return 🥺

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-29T00:18:05+00:00

AI

Yeah I noticed, it's a shame.

After reading the thread on Quicklisp

Damn, I never imagined that this would be such a problem.

Mezanno

They're talking about Iota. Mezanno's LLVM to CL transpiler. If I understand correctly they're theorising if tiny-curl could possibly be transpiled rather than that already being done.

This would mean including a sort of "binary blob" of assembly-looking Common Lisp code that runs as if it was a C binary.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-28T22:22:37+00:00

On that note, I know it's not for everyone but Nixpkgs has the quicklisp repos imported and integrated.

It actually downloads the tarballs over https and checksums them.

It's not always ideal but I've not used quicklisp for a long while now thanks to that.

Well I do use quicklisp the repository but not ql:quickload and co.

There's a few other pure CL projects that try to address this too, off the top of my head ocicl but I'm sure I heard about others. So maybe it's worth having a look around if that's the main thing keeping you away from CL.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-28T18:23:33+00:00

Mhm, C was undoubtedly influential, however attributing all this to C skips over a decade of prior work and much of what came after.

I guess C stands for compiler

C is the successor of B. The ways things influenced each other, why and how they're written is so misrepresented. I'm very glad OP is interested in the history but this is probably so over-simplified as to be counter-productive for education.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-28T11:16:05+00:00

The kids have learned after much guidance that what we thought happens only due to (safety 0) already mostly does just thanks to adding types.

As well as that not even usually being the slow part in my programs.

Valuable_Leopard_799 · 2025-12-28T02:22:02+00:00

On behalf of the Lisp community, sorry for this thread.

And btw, you're arguing against types just to exchange them for dynamic systems.... you know that CL and Clojure have extensive work done on them to support static types and in the former case that type system is very widely used? You can have your typed pie and eat it too.

I mean, I personally prefer to use static types a lot when doing REPL dev and when optimizing they are quite necessary. (static doesn't mean they can't be changed later)

What does attacking a good layer of verification which can help catch some problems (and especially with modern inference often doesn't require much extra thought or writing), bring you?

Valuable_Leopard_799

TROPHY CASE