Sun Microsystems was once the great hope of the computing world, and technically the JVM was first to normalise the use of VM’s, albeit from a containerised perspective. It was Docker before docker, in some sense.
This coupled with Solaris and the SPARC systems that were Java-native (whatever that means) enabled this type of containerisation from a hardware level, which again: was a huge thing.
But, Sun turned for the worse once the JVM hit browsers and server stacks. That’s when their SaaS model was envisioned, that was the precursor to the acquisition by Oracle.
So it started nicely, but hit the enshitification velocity somewhere in the early 2000s.
Hum, no. The idea of a fast intermediate representation that is still high-level enough to allow for runtime optimizations and portability is GREAT. It’s not “less bad”.
But, of course, everything else destroys the language. A language agnostic WASM is taking that one really great part, and dropping everything else.
Stereotypes exists so that I can be the 5% that doesn’t fall into them.
Two monitors but a solid case side panel (in fact it’s a case that’s so old that at the time TG side panels were not common). If I could be at liberty to choose parts purely based on looks, I’d go with something black, minimalistic and with no RGB.
Huge fan of the non-TG Fractal Design R series cases for your use case. Pretty, but minimalistic. Airflow might be a bit of an issue given that they’re noise focused cases.
I have the Define R5 right now and it’s mostly good, but it’s choking a bit. I was thinking of getting a Torrent because of the airflow. Even with the TG I think it looks good, could be useful for shoving an info display or a clock inside, moreover a solid side panel doesn’t make as much sense when it’s not dampened (and this is an airflow-focused case).
C is the hardware language N°1 of the high-level languages. If you actually want to know and control what happens in the machine, you write in C. Rust, C++ and all the other abstractions are for people who do not understand how computers and computer memory work.
even if you write in assembly, you still may not actually understand what is going on in the machine since processors convert the instructions to “micro-ops”, and let’s not forget hardware bugs like those caused by speculative execution
I’ve written programs in C. I’ve written programs in assembly, for x86 and for microcontrollers. I’ve designed digital logic and programmed it into an FPGA. I’ve built digital logic circuits with transistors.
I’ll still take Go over C any day of the week. If I’m doing embedded, I’ll use TinyGo.
Programming languages are tools. I couldn’t care less about learning a new tool just for the sake of learning. My interest in learning tools is exclusively practical - if they help me do my work better.
I find functional languages interesting, but that’s because I find the underlying theory interesting and worth learning for its own sake, not because I actually care about the specific language it’s written in. Even then these days I’d rather learn about woodworking (which is currently my main hobby) than a programming paradigm I’m probably never going to use.
This is a misconception that’s common among beginner C programmers. They think C is high level assembly and don’t understand the kinds of optimisations modern compilers make. And they think they’re hardcore and don’t make mistakes.
I’m gonna make you break this up into multiple PRs before reviewing, but honestly, if your refactoring reduced the surface area by 20% I’m a happy man.
Please, no, I get flashbacks from my 6-month journey (still ongoing…) of the code review process I caused/did. Keeping PR scope contained and small is hard.
From this experience, I wish GitLab had a “Draft of Draft” to tell the reviewer what the quality of the pushed code is at: “NAK”, “It maybe compiles”, “The logic is broken” and “Missing 50% of the code”, “This should be split into N PRs”. This would allow openly co-develop, discuss, and steer the design, before moving to nitpicking on the naming, formatting, and/or documentation details of the code, which is likely to drastically change. Drafts do work for this, but the discussions can get uncomfortably long and convolute the actual finishing of the review process.
Once both reviewer(s) and the author agree on the code design, the “DraftDraft” could be collapsed into a link in an normal Draft to be mocked next. The scope of such draft would be limited by the earlier “DraftDraft”.
Honestly, yeah sometimes. It’s my emotional reflex to frustration that was programmed into me by my parents and I haven’t done enough cognitive behavioral therapy to undo it.
As someone who discovered my Type 1 ASD at 40, the gods know that I have a lot more work to do on my self-awareness and abrasiveness.
Not saying you should adopt this, but sometimes I read aloud what I type and imagine myself replying to a student in real life in the way of and with the tone that people sometimes have on StackOverflow.
My gut reaction at that point, usually, is to rewrite a response or post completely with a more generous dose of humility and compassion.
I don’t always get it right, but when I remember to do that and read replies, I like myself a little bit more.
I’ve been thinking about this a bit more, and I realized that I talk to other people the way I talk to myself. This probably wouldn’t be a problem if I weren’t so critical of myself.
I think I need to not only put in the effort to reread the things I write when communicating with others, but also to just be kinder to myself in my internal monologue.
I spend too much time being frustrated inside my own head, and that makes it easy to use that same tone when I’m interacting with other people.
Thanks for sharing your advice. I think verbalizing my thoughts the way you suggested will be really helpful.
It’s not about feeling better. It’s about getting the other person to understand that Google exists and that they can use it, too. Too many people refuse to put in any effort of their own and go ask someone instead.
IMHO in that situation answering isn’t even the right thing to do, since it encourages that behaviour and prevents the asker from learning to find out stuff for themselves. Something about fishing for hungry people or so…
When someone is genuinely stuck, doing research themselves allows the answerer not to go down the same dead ends, which saves time for both.
If it’s on Stack Exchange, you can help us keep the community decent by assuming good faith and being patient with newcomers. Yes, it’s frustrating. And yeah, sometimes, it’s basically impossible to avoid sarcasm and scorn, just like how HN sometimes needs to be sneered at, but we can still strive for a maximum of civility.
If all else fails, just remember: you’re not on Philosophy SE or any of the religious communities, it’s just a computer question, and it can be answered without devolving into an opinion war. Pat yourself on the back for being a “schmott guy!” and write a polite answer that hopefully the newbies will grok. Be respectful of plural perspectives; it’s a feature that a question may have multiple well-liked answers.
programmer_humor
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.