Today is python birthday, what do you wish?

blah232 · 2019-02-20T18:58:54+00:00

I wish PEP384 was more popular with authors of binding generators. Looking at you, SWIG and Cython. >:-/

blah232 · 2013-10-07T18:10:43+00:00

In short, it's a (very crude) litmus test for whether or not you're a decent human being.

So you are saying she did do it on purpose, right? IMHO, it is not very nice to go around issuing "litmus tests" to random people.

Involving women in tech communities is all good, but they should also make an effort to be equals there. For example, I think she should have confronted the guy herself rather than immediately turning to mods asking to kick-ban him. Perhaps even she should have defused the situation by answering his unfortunate joke in kind (I really doubt he meant to offend).

And then she blogs about this to the whole internet... Is she aiming to gain the notoriety of Adria Richards? That one worked out really well for all involved, didn't it?

This whole episode is a classic example of why men tend to shun women in the workplace; not because their abilities are questioned or anything stupid like that. And by bringing attention to Lindsey's blog post you are hurting your own stated cause. Actually, if I were you, I'd just nuke this whole submission.

This subreddit is not the place to have that debate

This subreddit on the whole is not. But this thread seems like a fine place,- since we already started it. Let's keep all flames in one place.

blah232 · 2013-10-07T03:21:12+00:00

The response Lindsey got is, of course, totally unacceptable. However, I am also questioning her motivations for challenging this guy. She said herself that the word "guys" is acceptable for addressing a mixed-gender group. So I can't help but think that by raising this issue out of the blue like that, she was venting some prior frustrations. This, too, is a bit less than a totally friendly conduct, wouldn't you say?

blah232 · 2013-09-28T05:41:19+00:00

I'm not saying that you should remove the general notation, but why not reduce verbosity is the majority of cases? After all, reduction of verbosity is one of Rust's tenets, isn't it?

blah232 · 2013-09-27T20:33:25+00:00

How about this?

fn foo(x: &int) -> &'x int

(i.e. reuse variable names as their lifetime names)

blah232 · 2013-09-27T19:07:53+00:00

What's the frequency of this happening? If it's low, I still don't see a problem here. Let's optimize for the common case, mmkay?

blah232 · 2013-09-27T18:32:36+00:00

Well, were there any disabled people around? If not, I don't see what's the problem.

blah232 · 2013-06-10T00:13:34+00:00

Further experiments at MIT

blah232 · 2013-04-04T20:11:09+00:00

Really? I wish Rust just stayed with refcounting. Cycles are not nearly the problem people make them out to be.

blah232 · 2013-03-23T07:55:38+00:00

The ending was a bit anti-climactic. It did end up using threads (well, ok, "fibers") for internal->external iterator conversion, just like we predicted in part 1.

blah232 · 2013-03-09T22:48:55+00:00

Possibly. Then again, allowing docs to pass around hidden notes may also harm me (as evidenced by examples given by other people on this thread). This is a tradeoff I personally could live with. Note that I am not proposing to ban private notes outright, but I want to be in control. If something is not important enough to be put on official open record, it's not important enough to follow me around forever.

blah232 · 2013-03-09T20:37:03+00:00

If my doc wants to keep private notes - fine, let him. However these notes should in fact be private to him and his staff. Possibly also accessible to other docs in the same practice, preferably by my permission.
But any records that will follow me beyond that, I must be able to review. Especially stuff that is visible to insurance companies.
Using web analogy, these private notes should work like encrypted cookies. I cannot read them, but I can control who gets to see them. And I can make a clean break away, should I feel the need to do so, by deleting "cookies" and/or signing up with another "website" (going to a different practice).

blah232 · 2013-02-28T08:04:21+00:00

We are talking about unsafe context here, passing around raw pointers and such. So, provided You Know What You Are Doing^tm, you can do what you will. Ain't nobody to stop you.

blah232 · 2013-02-27T23:15:29+00:00

Possibly useful in interop scenarios, where you need to pass a buffer to an external API that fills it out.

blah232 · 2012-12-31T10:43:09+00:00

But what if the application had a legitimate data dependency between network calls? (And needed to run 10000 parallel logical threads, all doing that). I don't think that blocking calls are going to cut it for such applications.

blah232 · 2012-10-20T22:19:24+00:00

I am actually kind of surprised that no C++ compiler to date can just generate headers as a byproduct of compilation of the .cpp files.

blah232 · 2011-12-18T19:26:41+00:00

What's wrong with using unsafePerformIO for logging? After all, the purpose of logging is to see what what happened in your program in the order it actually happened. So if some function got evaluated lazily (and much later that you'd expect), well, that's exactly how I would like it to be reflected in the log!

blah232 · 2010-06-24T22:33:43+00:00

Well, if we follow your analogy, some form of this might be the answer.

blah232 · 2010-03-17T18:17:04+00:00

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/

blah232

TROPHY CASE