PHP and C are both fine languages, they have their strengths and their weaknesses. They’re tools and if you feel the need to shit on them then you clearly need more practice using a diversity of languages.
Ah yes, the almighty counter “everything is relative”. “Malbolge is a fine language with its strengths and weaknesses. It has perfectly valid usecases and can never be shit on, ever.”
PHP is probably a fine language, my issue is I suffered dealing with so many shitty applications written in php when I was still coming up through the ranks of IT.
God the number of broken WordPress installs and shitty WordPress plugins.
I understand your pain - the real reason for that is that PHP was the first “hobbyist” programming language so a lot of self trained folks built websites that ended up slowly morphing into successful businesses.
One of the things I’m actually most proud of from the PHP community is that around 5.2 the maintainers looked around and saw sites like Quora and StackOverflow were littered with the worst fucking PHP advice endorsing functions like mysql_query and ill-advised features like magic_quotes so the community invested a lot of resources in purging answers that preached anti-patterns and replace them with non-terrible answers.
I work in PHP and it’s perfectly serviceable now, we’ve got strict typing, namespaces, lambdas, all the nice shit you’d expect in a modern language.
Update: thank you for pointing out to me which community this was posted on.
I’m going to leave this post up as a cautionary tale for people like me who don’t pay enough attention!
But Linux is cool cuz it’s so fast and it doesn’t break.
Long as I’ve been using it anyway.
So now linux is going to be much slower, going to break and be more susceptible to security breaches?
I’m not a programmer, is the upside supposed to be that with so many more programmers able to work on the kernel, those issues will be able to be fixed by the extra programmers?
It’s not like there’s anything wrong with Linux right now.
For the benefit of any of Today’s 10,000 I just want to point out that this is a reference to a quote from a movie.
The same movie stars Danny Trejo as Machete.
This movie is Spy Kids 2.
How? You’d need to compile it down to machine code somehow, for the processor to have any clue how to run it. And you’d need some custom library with custom compile instructions, to be able to control memory allocations, memory addresses etc…
I did a quick search and found two operating systems written in JS, both of which cop out when it comes to the kernel. Did you maybe mix it up with those?
I mean, I’m a bit out of my water there, both in terms of the featureset of PHP and what’s actually needed for a kernel, but I’m still gonna go with no.
For one, PHP uses reference counting + garbage collection for memory management. That’s normally done by the language runtime, which you won’t have when running baremetal.
Maybe you could implement a kernel, which does as few allocations as possible (generally a good idea for a kernel, but no idea, if it’s possible with PHP), and then basically just let it memory leak until everything crashes.
Then again, the kernel is responsible for making processes crash when they have a memory leak. Presumably, our PHP kernel would just start overwriting data from running processes and eventually overwrite itself in memory(?). Either way, it would be horrendous.
Maybe you could also try to implement some basic reference counting into your own PHP code, so that your own code keeps track of how often you’ve used an object in your own code. Certainly doesn’t sound like fun, though.
Well, and secondly, I imagine, you’d also still need an extension of the language, to be able to address actual memory locations and do various operations with them.
I know from Rust, that they’ve got specific functions in the stdlib for that, see for example: doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/ptr/index.html#funct…
Presumably, PHP does not have such functions, because its users aren’t normally concerned with that.
Right – I’m not saying you could build a compiler then just go to town. You would still have to build all the tools, using PHP, to interact with hardware, the way other languages do. A horrible idea, lol, but interesting, sort of. Since at its core as long as you can execute logic and read/write to memory, you could do it, I think
But that is what I mean with it needing an extension of the language.
So, I’m not saying you could just build a library that calls existing PHP functions to make it all work. Rather I’m saying there’s certain machine code instructions, which just cannot be expressed in PHP. And we need those machine code instructions for actually managing memory. So, I am talking about reading/writing to memory not being possible, unless we resort to horrible hacks.
Since we are building our own compiler anyways, we could add our own function-stubs and tell our compiler to translate them to those missing machine code instructions. But then that is a superset of PHP. It wouldn’t be possible in PHP itself.
Again, I’m not entirely sure about the above, but my web search skills couldn’t uncover any way to actually just read from a memory address in PHP.
It has been a while since I have to deal with problem complexities in college, is there even class of problems that would require something like this, or is there a proven upper limit/can this be simplified? I don’t think I’ve ever seen O(n!^k) class of problems.
Hmm, iirc non-deterministic turing machines should be able to solve most problems, but I’m not sure we ever talked about problems that are not NP. Are there such problems? And how is the problem class even called?
Oh, right, you also have EXP and NEXP. But that’s the highest class on wiki, and I can’t find if it’s proven that it’s enough for all problems. Is there a FACT and NFACT class?
Pasting the same thing I commented last time this was posted:
After reading that entire post, I wish I had used AI to summarize it.
I am not in the equally unserious camp that generative AI does not have the potential to drastically change the world. It clearly does. When I saw the early demos of GPT-2, while I was still at university, I was half-convinced that they were faked somehow. I remember being wrong about that, and that is why I’m no longer as confident that I know what’s going on.
This pull quote feels like it’s antithetical to their entire argument and makes me feel like all they’re doing is whinging about the fact that people who don’t know what they’re talking about have loud voices. Which has always been true and has little to do with AI.
I kinda get where he is coming for though. AI is being crammed into everything, and especially in things where they are not currently suited to be.
After learning about Machine learning, you kind realize that unlike “regular programs” that ML gives you “roughly what you want” answers. Approximations really. This is all fine and good for generating images for example, because minor details being off of what you wanted probably isn’t too bad. A chat bot itself isn’t wrong here, because there are many ways to say the same thing. The important thing is that there is a definite step after that where you evaluate the result. In simpler ML you can even figure out the specifics of the process, but for the most part we evaluate what the LLM said or if the image is accurate to our expectations. But we can’t control or constrain the output to exactly our needs, because our restrictions largely are just input in a almost finished approximation engine.
The problem is, that companies take these approximation engines, put them in their product and consider their output fact. Like Ai chatbots doing customer support, and make up facts like the user that was told about rules that didn’t exist for an airline, or the search engines that parrot jokes or harmful advice. Sure you and I might realize that these things come from a machine that doesn’t actually think about it’s answers, but others don’t. And throwing a “*this might be wrong because its AI” on it is not an acceptable waiver of accountability.
Despite this, I use chatgpt and gemini a lot to help me program, they get a lot of things wrong but also do great. It’s a great tool, exactly because I step in after the approximation step, review and decide. I’m aware of the limits. But putting these things in front of “users” without a review step means you are advertising that you are either unaware of this flaw, or just see the cost-benefit analysis and see that if noting else it’ll generate interest during the hype.
There is a huge potential, but throwing AI into a situation where facts are needed when it’s only making rough guesses, is the wrong way about it.
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.