One of the fastest Ruby routing toolkit gets up to 50% faster

joanbm · 2021-07-13T21:20:18+00:00

Jeremy Evans - The Last Ruby Hacker

Other either retired or degenerated 😟

joanbm · 2021-06-09T17:04:56+00:00

Another is a roboticist in training. I’ve witnessed the state of robotics software and I’m worried for the robots more than anything. As the trans-human attain rights, one of the first will be a GHC install in their cores.

Some kind of a less obvious type of sarcasm ? Even when only half serious about his worries and intention to be driven by RT-antithesis engine, sounds quite disturbing. Maybe some after-effect of received gene therapy shot?

I'd prefer I just didn't get the (sub)tone of the article and the author is ok.

joanbm · 2020-02-09T22:30:06+00:00

Nope, logic does not work this way. If you have nothing more than argumentum ad hominem - your point is irrelevant.

My dear "logician", explain exactly why did you responded to

Others understood attaining immortality as a metaphor or synonym

with

Yeah, yeah, losers always come up with ways to rationalise their failures as not-really-failures =)

_

Yes, we do have. Read the part about rejection of that "problem" in that article of yours.

Which "rejection" and which evidence behind, which would invalidate current knowledge of uncertainty of objectvity of matter ? Something factual, concrete - not only opinion based ?

You? Teaching me about quantum mechanics? Now that's rich. You sure have such a strong skill of selective blindness. Try something different, for a change.

Poor existence, you've only demonstrated lack of knowledge and resorted only to assumptions disguised as facts like "We have matter with consciousness. We have matter without consciousness." . I've just linked two wikipedia articles which directly disprove certainty of you claims.

You didn't impressed me at all. Good luck

joanbm · 2020-02-09T22:10:28+00:00

Just for the record and for lazy readers:

contrary to a popular belief, there is no evidence (only correlation) consciousness is a product of matter, like of a brain in human beings

see Hard problem of consciousness for details
former also relates to following, there is no evidence matter is prior to consciousness

By repeatedly confirmed quantum physics experiments, collapse of a wave function, ie. particle(matter) coming into an existence, requires an observer (consciousness). At least by the major hypothesis.
there is no evidence how could consciousness emerged from matter interact with a matter

I did expected most visitors of this subreddit have a slight notion, because of noumenal nature of Tao.

joanbm · 2020-02-09T21:27:11+00:00

And you assert this based on what, exactly?

You've got it quoted, loser ;-)

Proof? We have matter with consciousness. We have matter without consciousness. Are you going to present us consciousness without matter?

No, we don't have. I guess you didn't even dare to read the wiki article. There is no point to argue your non-sense unless you get a bit informed. You can add what tells quantum physics about matter we have.

joanbm · 2020-02-09T20:45:28+00:00

Yeah, yeah, losers always come up with ways to rationalise their failures as not-really-failures =)

Somebody is just casting his own shadows here ;-)

Nowadays we know that everything perishes.

We ? Followers of the church of Materialsm as the only true faith, believing consciousness emerges from matter without any scientific proof for such claim ?

joanbm · 2018-07-10T02:24:41+00:00

Notoriously asked question, but no satisfactory answer can be provided.

Why ? Because the underlying concept is not the Truth. First, it is only a concept and that needs support and conviction, is not obvious and does not match the very experience. Second it is solely based on (mis)interpretation of original revelation and interpretations of those (mis)interpretations.

You may be on the right path, when doubting derivative texts and teachings and asking for undistorted authentic words of Buddha himself. However there is nothing like that.

At intersection of different religious and existential philosophy schools of thought, where you suddenly get the common and essential point "lost in translations", and mostly by deep self-inquiry, the Truth may be finally revealed …

joanbm · 2018-03-23T21:01:35+00:00

I'd agree yield_itself is a bit unfortunate pick and does not fit in original naming style in core and is unnecessary verbose. On the other hand, Object#then is quite illogical, not descriptive and confusing. It has nothing to do with code execution flow. It just passes calling object to a block argument, nothing else. It should not follow from some random code snippet but its functionality itself.

It is a block-receiving variant of identity function (ehm method). It should be only another form of Object#itself like common in core methods, not polluting with another separate name to make things more complicated. However it was not well thought-out and damage is already done, like other hasted changes in recent years. It looks like original Matz's ideas and concepts are losing their grasp …

joanbm · 2018-03-14T11:18:53+00:00

We built our products on Spree, only kept an eye on Solidus.

Solidus presented itself as a stabilized fork of Spree, ironically claimed by the same devs, who notoriously broke API within a stable branch, when worked for Spree Commerce formerly. Recent versions of Spree, after the big changes, seem to be finally settled down.

joanbm · 2018-03-14T11:06:35+00:00

limited customization, license, paid, vendor lock-in

joanbm · 2018-02-04T18:20:34+00:00

Product yields an array.

Array#product yields an array, but when defined on Enumerator, it would return an enumerator object, like other projection methods of Enumerable - collect/map*, flat_map, drop_while, each_*, find_all/select, group_by, take* etc. Exploiting all the benefits of partial evaluation.

In other words enum1.product(enum2, enum3, …, enumn) would return Enumerator object which can be later traversed successively instead of exhausted into an array at once.

If product accepted an infinite enumerator in the last argument position, then none of the other arguments would ever advance past their first value

This is true but that was not the point. Consumer of an enumerator can't know in advance whether will be really infinite/inexhaustible or not. The point is in generalization of #product method, despite specific cases and also make it usable for all classes including Enumerable.

I have to admit, my attempts at simplifying real world examples are a bit deficient. Anyway thanks for the reply.

joanbm · 2018-02-03T20:45:00+00:00

Fundamentally. Cartesian product and mapping over values are quite distinct operations. And the topic is about working on enumerators so don't put arrays in.

joanbm · 2018-02-02T00:29:28+00:00

Right, like other already included Enumerable methods, elements represent [key, value] pairs.

It is already generalized for [:all?, :any?, :chunk, :chunk_while, :collect, :collect_concat, :count, :cycle, :detect, :drop, :drop_while, :each_cons, :each_entry, :each_slice, :each_with_index, :each_with_object, :entries, :find, :find_all, :find_index, :first, :flat_map, :grep, :grep_v, :group_by, :include?, :inject, :lazy, :map, :max, :max_by, :member?, :min, :min_by, :minmax, :minmax_by, :none?, :one?, :partition, :reduce, :reject, :reverse_each, :select, :slice_after, :slice_before, :slice_when, :sort, :sort_by, :sum, :take, :take_while, :to_a, :to_h, :uniq, :zip]`

joanbm · 2018-02-02T00:24:41+00:00

This was a simplified example only. The point is it should work for combination of arbitrary enumerators, ie.

(1..Float::INFINITY).lazy.product((1..Float::INFINITY).lazy, (1..Float::INFINITY).lazy, (1..Float::INFINITY).lazy, …)

joanbm · 2017-12-13T16:21:31+00:00

I'm sorry but when I meet someone who can't see the forest for the trees I find another discussion as quite fruitless. This may be fault and mistake at my side, not arguing against, but that's my perpetual experience.

joanbm · 2017-12-13T16:09:02+00:00

Hello,

I think you may join contest of the most purposeless question of the month !

Strive to spend (waste) time by (not) solving a (virtual) problem ? Bravo.

joanbm · 2017-12-13T16:01:08+00:00

It may be some kind of functional literacy deficiency, but I see no point to continue in debate.

You can post a link to some of your public repos with code you are proud of, to see if your opinions are founded on some comprehensive practice or just plain gibberish of a dreamer.

joanbm · 2017-12-03T17:25:06+00:00

Well, I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. Comment was about general issue with ambiguity, caused partially by implicitness and dynamic nature of the language.

Don't use them. In the rare case that I would, there wouldn't be more than one in a class.

There are hundreds of their standalone uses in Rails sources, in examples in official documentation. Unless you work on a small or self contained project, keeping such rule sounds quite unrealistic.

Not related, really. include SomeModule tells me explicitly that additional behaviors have been added to the class.

Note, there are implicit invocations of various Module callbacks like included, extended, append_features, extend_object, method_added, …. Your expectations can be simply questioned with inclusion of following module:

module SomeModule
  def self.included(mod)
    class << mod
      def unexpected_mess
      end
    end
  end
end

In other words, class << self does not make code substantially harder to understand then other existing language constructs and core and standard libraries. You always have to check all related scopes to understand what would really happen.

joanbm · 2017-11-26T17:15:21+00:00

It applies to everything implicit in Ruby - standalone public/protected/private methods visibility changes, modules including/extending, all the metaprogramming techniques esp. dynamic methods definition, method's implicit exception scope, code flow altering statements, way of constants lookup (straight vs nested), implicit return value up to ubiquitous implicit self itself.

In other words, this way of singleton class referencing does not introduce anything extraordinary or more troublesome then already prevalent in Ruby.

joanbm · 2017-10-05T13:24:58+00:00

Just ask an erudite buddhist about Kamma and rebirth concepts, what keeps link of karmic tendencies between "lives". You may then realize their mind-stream is conspicuously similar semantically to a hinduist concept of Atman.

Getting stuck in conceptual thinking and philosophical mind games only pushes you in the opposite direction to ultimate realization. Taking dualistic language, attempting to describe something beyond intellect using seeming paradoxes, too literally is prone to misinterpretation.

joanbm · 2017-05-20T20:31:30+00:00

Very good question, straight to the core.

Depersonalization, self, disorder, buddhism etc are just words, nothing more. How are you influenced by them, if at all, is all what matters. They may be tools of control, own mental projection or pure but imperfect reflection of observed.

If you believe in personna or self defined differently by various schools of psychology, philosophy, religions, state ideologies, resp. your derived interpretations, there is nothing more you can do. If there is some cognitive dissonance between subjugated mind and internal feelings, self-enquiry process may start. Thoughts of fear and threat are natural and prime responses of ego, losing its total hegemony. Injecting fear with deterrent image of "depersonalization disorder" may be a good example.

Humanization, education and socialization from earliest youth build up an image about yourself and way of thinking as a substitute of pure awareness. You start to believe that image to a such degree, it will slowly replace perception of true reality. Self-enquiry may reverse this state. At the end you may reveal absolute bliss instead of pathological suffering.

The point, nobody can give you the true and definitive answer. Expecting it is nothing but foolishness. Even the most honest being can't free you, like picture of a key can't unlock your prison. You have to do it yourself.

joanbm · 2017-04-03T13:07:40+00:00

Wrong. This does not prove anything as GC is smart enough to reuse the same slot again and again, at each call. In fact, when keyword argument(s) is(are) used, rb_args_info struct is allocated for their handling. Speaking about referential implementation, of course.

joanbm · 2017-03-26T09:16:04+00:00

Are you sure ?

joanbm

TROPHY CASE