3,420 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2023
    1. I've mentioned it before, but what I find interesting is the idea of really parsing shell (scripts) like a conventional programming language—e.g. where what would ordinary be binary invocations are actually function calls i.e. to built-ins (and all that implies, such as inlining, etc).

    1. Thompson observed that backtracking required scanning some parts of the input string multiple times. To avoid this, he built a VM implementation that ran all the threads in lock step: they all process the first character in the string, then they all process the second, and so on.

      What about actual concurrency (i.e. on a real-world CPU using e.g. x86-64 SMP) and not just a simulation? This should yield a speedup on lexing, right? Lexing a file containing n tokens under those circumstances should then take about as long as lexing the same number of tokens in a language that only contains a single keyword foo—assuming you can parallelize up to the number of keywords you have, with no failed branching where you first tried to match e.g. int, long, void, etc before finally getting around to the actual match.

    1. The next article in this series, “Regular Expression Matching: the Virtual Machine Approach,” discusses NFA-based submatch extraction. The third article, “Regular Expression Matching in the Wild,” examines a production implementation. The fourth article, “Regular Expression Matching with a Trigram Index,” explains how Google Code Search was implemented.

      Russ's regular expression article series makes for a good example when demonstrating the Web's pseudomutability problem. It also works well to discuss forward references.

    2. A more efficient but more complicated way to simulate perfect guessing is to guess both options simultaneously

      NB: Russ talking here about flattening the NFA into a DFA that has enough synthesized states to represent e.g. in either state A or state B. He's not talking about CPU-level concurrency. But what if he were?

    1. A contributor license agreement, or CLA, usually (but not always) includes an important clause: a copyright assignment.

      Mm, no.

      There are CLAs, and there are copyright assignments, and there are some companies that have CLAs that contain a copyright assignment, but they don't "usually" include a copyright assignment.

    1. Relative economies of scale were used by Nikunj Mehta in his dissertation to compare architectural choices: “A system is considered to scale economically if it responds to increased processing requirements with a sub-linear growth in the resources used for processing.”

      Wait, why is sub-linear growth a requirement...?

      Doesn't it suffice if there are some c₁ and c₂ such that costs are characterized by U(x) = rᵤx + c₁ and returns are V(x) = rᵥx + c₂ where rᵥ < rᵤ and the business had enough capital to reach the point where U(x) < V(x)?

    2. the era of specialization: people writing about technical subjects in a way that only other scientists would understand. And, as their knowledge grew, so did their need for specialist words to describe that knowledge. If there is a gulf today, between the man-in-the-street and the scientists and the technologists who change his world every day, that’s where it comes from.

      Vannevar Bush on this phenomenon:

      Communication: Where Do We Go From Here?

      "We are in danger of building a Tower of Babel"

    3. A few people even complained that my dissertation is too hard to read. Imagine that!

      To be fair: it's not an example of particularly good writing. As Roy himself says:

      ["hypertext as the engine of hypermedia state"*] is fundamental to the goal of removing all coupling aside from the standardized data formats and the initial bookmark URI. My dissertation does not do a good job of explaining that (I had a hard deadline, so an entire chapter on data formats was left unwritten) but it does need to be part of REST when we teach the ideas to others.

      https://web.archive.org/web/20080603222738/http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/03/23/Connecting#c1206306269z

      I'm actually surprised that Fielding's dissertation gets cited so often. Fielding and Taylor's "Principled Design of the Modern Web Architecture" is much better.

      * sic

    4. The problem is that various people have described “I am using HTTP” as some sort of style in itself and then used the REST moniker for branding (or excuses) even when they haven’t the slightest idea what it means.
    5. It isn’t RESTful to use POST for information retrieval when that information corresponds to a potential resource, because that usage prevents safe reusability and the network-effect of having a URI.

      Controversial opinion: response bodies should never have been allowed for POST requests.

  2. citeseerx.ist.psu.edu citeseerx.ist.psu.edu
    1. How about an example that doesn't make you cringe: a piece of code known as Foo.java from conception through all its revisions to the most recent version maintains the same identity. We still call it Foo.java. To reference a specific revision or epoch is what Fielding is getting at with his "temporally varying member function MR(t), where revision r or time t maps to a set of spatial parts" stuff. In short, line 15 of Foo.java is just as much a part as version 15 of Foo.java, they just reference different subsets of its set of parts (one spatial and one temporal).
    1. it’s definitely too late for a clearer naming scheme so let’s move on

      No way. Not too late for a better porcelain that keeps the underlying data model but discards the legacy nomenclature entirely.

    1. almost every other time I've had the misfortune of compiling a c(++) application from scratch it's gone wildly wrong with the most undiagnose-able wall of error messages I've ever seen (and often I never manyage to figure it out even after over a day of trying because C developers insist on using some of the most obtuse build systems conceivable)
  3. Oct 2023
    1. where I have access to the full reply chain, of which my own instance often captures only a subset

      extremely frustrating

      The experience is so bad, I don't know why Mastodon even bothers trying to synthesize and present these local views to the user. I either have to click through every time, or I'm misled into thinking that my instance has already shown me the entire discussion, so I forget to go to the original.

    2. I realized that what I wanted is not a better Mastodon client, but a better Mastodon workflow

      If you remove the word "Mastodon" from this sentence, this insight holds for a lot of things.

    1. The solution, Hickey concludes, is that we ought to model the world not as a collection of mutable objects but a collection of processes acting on immutable data.

      Compelling offer when you try draw upon your experience to visualize the opportunity cost of proceeding along the current path by focusing on the problem described, but it's basically a shell game; the solution isn't a solution. It rearranges the deck chairs—at some cost.

    1. HTML had blown open document publishing on the internet

      ... which may have really happened, per se, but it didn't wholly incorporate (subsume/cannibalize) conventional desktop publishing, which is still in 2023 dominated by office suites (a la MS Word) or (perversely) browser-based facsimiles like Google Docs. Because the Web as it came to be used turned out to be as a sui generis medium, not exactly what TBL was aiming for, which was giving everything (everything—including every existing thing) its own URL.

    1. Hixie does have a point (though he didn't make it explicitly) and that is that the script doesn't really add anything semantic to the document, and thus would be better if it was accessed as an external resource

      Interesting distinction.

    1. or slightly more honestly as “RESTful” APIs

      I don't think that arises from honesty. I'm pretty sure most people saying "RESTful" don't have any clue what REST really is. I think they just think that RESTful was cute, and they're not trying to make a distinction been "REST" and "RESTful" (i.e. "REST... ish", or "REST-inspired" if we're being really generous). Not most of them, at least.

    2. today it would not be at all surprising to find that an engineering team has built a backend using REST even though the backend only talks to clients that the engineering team has full control over

      It's probably not REST, anyway.

    3. Fielding came up with REST because the web posed a thorny problem of “anarchic scalability,” by which Fielding means the need to connect documents in a performant way across organizational and national boundaries. The constraints that REST imposes were carefully chosen to solve this anarchic scalability problem.

      There are better ways to put this.

    4. He was interested in the architectural lessons that could be drawn from the design of the HTTP protocol; his dissertation presents REST as a distillation of the architectural principles that guided the standardization process for HTTP/1.1.

      I don't think this is the best way to describe it. He was first interested in extracting an abstract model from the implementation of the Web itself (i.e. how it could be and was often experienced at the time—by simply using it). His primary concern was using that as a rubric against which proposals to extend HTTP would have to survive in order to be accepted by those working on standardization.

    5. The biggest of these misconceptions is that the dissertation directly addresses the problem of building APIs.

      "The biggest of these misconceptions [about REST] is that [Fielding's] dissertation directly addresses the problem of building APIs."

      For example (another HN commenter you can empathize with), danbruc insists on trying to understand REST in terms of APIs—even while the correct description is being given to him—because that's what he's always been told: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36963311

    1. Toillustrate this principle, an HTML page typically provides the user with a num-ber of affordances, such as to navigate to a different page by clicking a hyperlinkor to submit an order by filling out and submitting an HTML form. Performingany such action transitions the application to a new state, which provides theuser with a new set of affordances. In each state, the user’s browser retrievesan HTML representation of the current state from a server, but also a selec-tion of next possible states and the information required to construct the HTTPrequests to transition to those states. Retrieving all this information throughhypermedia allows the application to evolve without impacting the browser, andallows the browser to transition seamlessly across servers. The use of hyperme-dia and HATEOAS is central to reducing coupling among Web components, andallowed the Web to evolve into an open, world-wide, and long-lived system.In contrast to the above example, when using a non-hypermedia Web service(e.g., an implementation of CRUD operations over HTTP), developers have tohard-code into clients all the knowledge required to interact with the service.This approach is simple and intuitive for developers, but the trade-off is thatclients are then tightly coupled to the services they use (hence the need for APIversioning).
    1. Finally, it allows anauthor to reference the concept rather than some singularrepresentation of that concept, thus removing the need tochange all existing links whenever the representationchanges

      I'm against this, because on net it has probably been more harmful than beneficial.

      At the very least, if the mapping is going to change—and it's known/foreseeable that it will change, then it should be returning 3xx rather than 200 with varying payloads across time.

    2. A resource can map to the empty set, which allowsreferences to be made to a concept before any realization ofthat concept exist

      A very nice property—

      These are not strictly subject to the constraints of e.g. Git commits, blockchain entities, other Merkel tree nodes.

      You can make forward references that can be fulfilled/resolved when the new thing actually appears, even if it doesn't exist now at the time that you're referring to it.

    1. Messages are delineated by newlines. This means, in particular, that the JSON encoding process must not introduce newlines within a message. Note however that newlines are used in this document for readability.

      Better still: separate messages by double linefeed (i.e., a blank line in between each one). It only costs one byte and it means that human-readable JSON is also valid in all readers—not just ones that have been bodged to allow non-conformant payloads under special circumstances (debugging).

    1. ECMA-262 grammar

      So, at minimum, we won't get any syntax errors. But the semantics of the constructs we use means that it's a valid expectation that the browser itself can execute this code itself—even though it is not strictly JS—because the expected semantics here conveniently overlap with some of JS's semantics.

    2. Our main here is an immediately invoked function expression, so it runs as soon as it is encountered. An IIFE is used here since the triple script dialect has certain prohibitions on the sort of top-level code that can appear in a triple script's global scope, to avoid littering the namespace with incidental values.

      Emphasize that this corresponds to the main familiar from other programming systems—that triple scripts doesn't just permit arbitrary use of IIFEs at the top level, so long as you write them that way. This is in fact the correct way to denote the program entry point; it's special syntax.

    3. The code labelled the "program entry point" (containing the main function) is referred to as shunting block.

      Preface this with "In the world of triple scripts"?

      Also, we can link to the wiki article for shunting blocks.

    4. system.print("\nThis file doesn't end with a line terminator.");

      I don't like this. How about:

      system.print("\n");
      system.print("This file doesn't end with a line terminator.");
      

      (This will separate the last line from the preceding section by two blank lines, but that's acceptable—who said there must only be one?.)

    5. and these tests can be run with Inaft. Inaft allows tests to be written in JS, which is very similar to the triple script dialect. Inaft itself is a triple script, and a copy is included at tests/harness.app.htm.

      Reword this to say "[...] can be run with Inaft, which is included in in the project archive. (Inaft itself is a triple script, and the triplescripts.org philosophy encourages creators to make and use triple scripts that are designed to be copied into the project, rather than being merely referenced and subsequently downloaded e.g. by an external tool like a package manager.)"

    6. We need to embed the Hypothesis client here to invite people to comment on this. I've heard that one of the things that made the PHP docs so successful is that they contained a comment section right at the bottom of every page.

      (NB: I'm not familiar at all with the PHP docs through actual firsthand experience, so it may actually be wring. I've also seen others complain about this, too. But seems good, on net.)

    7. returns [ 0, 0, 0, 1 ]

      We can afford to emphasize the TYPE family constants here by saying something like:

      Or, to put it another way, given a statement let stats = checker.getStats(), the following results are true:

      stats[LineChecker.TYPE_NONE] // evaluates to `1`
      stats[LineChecker.TYPE_CR]   // evaluates to `0`
      stats[LineChecker.TYPE_LF]   // evaluates to `0`
      stats[LineChecker.TYPE_CRLF] // evaluates to `1`
      
    8. In fact, this is the default for DOS-style text-processing utilities.

      Note that the example cited is "a single line of text". We should emphasize that this isn't what we mean when we say that this is the default for DOS-style text files. (Of course DOS supports multi-line text files. It's just that the last line will have no CRLF sequence.)

    1. The hack uses some clever multi-language comments to hide the HTML in the file from the script interpreter, while ensuring that the documentation remains readable when the file is interpreted as HTML.

      flems.io uses this to great effect.

      The (much simpler) triplescripts.org list-of-blocks file format relies on a similar principle.

    1. I'm reminded of comments from someone on my team a year or two after Chrome was released where they explained that the reason they used it was because it "takes up less space"—on screen, that is; when you installed it, the toolbars took up 24–48 fewer pixels (or whatever) than the toolbars under Firefox's default settings.

      See also: when Moz Corp introduced Personas (lightweight themes) for Firefox. This was the selling point for, like, a stupid amount of people.

    1. There’s a cost to using dependencies. New versions are released, APIs change, and it takes time and effort to make sure your own code remains compatible with them. And the cost accumulates over time. It would be one thing if I planned to continually work on this code; it’s usually simple enough to migrate from one version of a depenency to the next. But I’m not planning to ever really touch this code again unless I absolutely need to. And if I do ever need to touch this code, I really don’t want to go through multiple years’ worth of updates all at once.

      The corollary: you can do that (make it once and never touch it again) if you are using the "native substrate" of the WHATWG/W3C Web platform. Breaking changes in "JavaScript" or "browsers" are rarely actually that. They're project/organizational failures one layer up—someone (who doesn't control users' Web browsers and how they work) decided to stop maintaining something or published a new revision but didn't commit to doing it in a backwards compatible way (and someone decided to build upon that, anyway).

    2. That’s the honest-to-goodness HTML I have in the Markdown for this post. That’s it! There’s no special setup; I don’t have to remember to put specific elements on the page before calling a function or load a bunch of extra resources.1 Of course, I do need to keep the JS files around and link to them with a <script> tag.

      There's nothing special about Web Components; the author could have just as easily put the script block itself there.

    3. Rather than dealing with the invariably convoluted process of moving my content between systems — exporting it from one, importing it into another, fixing any incompatibilities, maybe removing some things that I can’t find a way to port over — I drop my Markdown files into the new website and it mostly Just Works.

      What if you just dropped your pre-rendered static assets into the new system?

    4. although they happened to be built with HTML, CSS and JS, these examples were content, not code. In other words, they’d be handled more or less the same as any image or video I would include in my blog posts. They should be portable to any place in which I can render HTML.
    1. JSON deserializes into common native data types naturally (dictionary, list, string, number, null).You can deserialize XML into the same data types, but

      This is pretty circular reasoning. JSON maps so cleanly to JS data types, for example, because JSON is JS.

      It could trivially be made true that XML maps onto native data types if PL creators/implementors put such a data type (i.e. mixed content trees) into their programming systems... (And actually, given all the hype around XML ~20 years ago, it's kind of weird that that didn't happen—but that's another matter.)

    1. - if (!(typeof data === 'string' || Buffer.isBuffer(data))) { + if (!(typeof data === 'string' || isUint8Array(data))) {

      Better yet, just don't write code like this to begin with.

    2. code leveraging Buffer-specific methods needs polyfilling, preventing many valuable packages from being browser-compatible

      ... so don't rely on it.

      If the methods are helpful then reimplement them (as a library, even) and use that in your code. When passing data to code that you don't control, use the underlying ArrayBuffer instance.

      The very mention of polyfilling here represents a fundamental misapprehension about how to structure a codebase and decide which abstractions to rely on and which ones not to...

      cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_psychosis

    1. (I implement this second stock Firefox environment not with a profile but by changing the $HOME environment variable before I run this Firefox. Firefox on Unix helpfully respects $HOME and having the two environments be completely separate avoids various potential problems.)

      Going by this explanation, what Siebenmann means by "not with a profile" is "not by using the profile manager". The revelation that you can use an explicitly redefined $HOME is a neat trick, but if I understand correctly still results in a different profile being created/used. Again, though: neat trick.

    1. Much better if C vNext would just permit Pascal- (and now Go)-style ident: type declarations. It wouldn't even be hard for language implementers to support, and organizations could gradually migrate their codebases to the new form.

    1. You can see how this would happen after seeing former UT Dean of so-called “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”(DEI) Skyller Walkes, screaming at a group of students

      I watched the clip and was prepared to see something egregious.

      The characterization of Walkes as "screaming at a group of students" doesn't seem justifiable.

    1. The important part, as is so often the case with technology, isn’t coming up with a solution to the post portability problem, but coming up with a solution together so that there is mutual buy-in and sustainability in the approach.

      The solution is to not create keep creating these fucking problems in the first place.

    1. You can do this trick with the “view image”  option in the right-click menu, too – Ctrl-clicking that menu item will open that image in its own new tab.

      Not anymore; that menu item has been removed—and you can only use the "Open Image in New Tab" item now.

  4. Sep 2023
    1. A big problem with what's in this paper is that its logical paths reflect the déformation professionnelle of its author and the technologists' milieu.

      Links are Works Cited entries. Works Cited entries don't "break"; the works at the other end don't "change".

    1. else if (i === key.length - 1)

      This redundant check could be taken out of the loop. Since last is already "allocated" at function scope, a single line obj = obj[key.slice(last)] after the loop would do the same job, results in shallower cyclomatic nesting depth, and should be faster, too.

    2. this netted another 200ms improvement

      Takeaway: real world case studies have shown, insisting on using for...of and then transpiling it can cost you over half a second versus just writing a standard for loop.

    3. we know that we're splitting a string into an array of strings. To loop over that using a full blown iterator is totally overkill and a boring standard for loop would've been all that was needed.

      Yes! J*TDT applies, which in this case is: Just Write The Damn Thing.

    4. Given that the array of tokens grows with the amount of code we have in a file, that doesn't sound ideal. There are more efficient algorithms to search a value in an array that we can use rather than going through every element in the array. Replacing that line with a binary search for example cuts the time in half.
    1. JavaScrip is an interpreted language, not a compiled one, so by default, it will be orders of magnitude slower than an app written in Swift, Rust, or C++.

      Languages don't fall into the category of being either compiled or not. Implementations do. And the misconception of compiled code being ipso facto faster is a common one, but it's a misconception nonetheless (I suspect most often held by people who've never implemented one).

    1. This is a good example of something that deserves an upvote on the basis of being a positive contribution and/or provides a thought-provoking insight, even though I don't strictly agree with their conclusions or the opinionated parts of what they're saying; a modern package set of memory-safe implementations is something to consider along with what the failure to produce one will do to the project in the long-term. Whether ripgrep, exa, etc. are objectively or subjectively better than their forebears is a separate matter that is beside the point.

    1. Princes! listen to the voice of God, which speaks through me! Become good Christians! Cease to consider armed soldiers, nobles, heretical clergy, and perverse judges, as your principal supporters: united in the name of Christianity, learn to accomplish all the duties which it imposes on the powerful. Remember that it commands them to employ all their force to increase, in the most rapid manner possible, the social happiness of the poor.

      Markham's translation reads:

      Princes,

      Hearken to the voice of God which speaks through me. Return to the path of Christianity; no longer regard mercenary armies, the nobility, the heretical priests and perverse judges, as your principal support, but, united in the name of Christianity, understand how to carry out the duties which Christianity imposes on those who possess power. Remember that Christianity commands you to use all your powers to increase as rapidly as possible the social welfare of the poor!

    2. The spirit of Christianity is meekness, gentleness, charity, and, above all, loyalty; its arms are persuasion and demonstration.

      Markham's translation reads:

      The spirit of Christianity is gentleness, kindness, charity, and above all, honesty; its weapons are persuasion and example

    1. Whats the total power consumption of all Android devices? Shaving just 1% is probably a couple of coalfired power plants worth of CO2.

      This is one of those times that makes me think, "Okay, is this person saying this because they're coming at from a position of principle, or is it opportunism?" I.e., are they just reaching for plausible arguments that will serve as the plausible means in service to their desired ends?

      Because whatever that number is, it probably pales in comparison to the waste that has followed from the corruption of the fundamentals of the Web—in which every other site is using SPA frameworks and shooting Webpacked-and-bundled agglomeration of NPM modules down the tubes resulting in 10x the waste associated with the widespread use of e.g. jQuery had 10+ years ago—with jQuery itself being the original posterchild for profligate waste wrt the Web. And yet, I'd bet many of the people supporting the commenter's position here would also be among the ones to celebrate monstrously complicated and bloaty geegaws that exist for the express purpose of letting you use "native" C/C++ libraries in Web apps through transcompilation.

    1. The amount of boilerplate and number of dependencies involved in setting up a web development project has exploded over the past decade or so. If you browse through the various websites that are writing about web development you get the impression that it requires an overwhelming amount of dependencies, tools, and packages.
    1. We're setting these chemists up with conda in Ubuntu in WSL in a terminal whose startup command activates the conda environment. Not exactly a recipe for reproducibility after they get a new laptop.

      First step: stop perpetuating the circularity of the reasoning behind the belief that Python is good for computational science.

    1. The best way to learn is through apprenticeship -- that is, by doing some real task together with someone who has a different set of skills.

      This is an underappreciated truth.

    1. <ol><oln>(b)</oln><oli>No employer shall discriminate in any way on the basis of gender in the payment of wages, or pay any person in its employ a salary or wage rate less than the rates paid to its employees of a different gender for comparable work; [...]</oli></ol>

      Mmmm... I dunno. HTML already has <dl>, <dt>, and <dd>. It seems adequate to just (re)-use it for this purpose. That's what a document of statutory law really is—a list of definitions, not an ordered list. They happen to be in order, usually. But what if Congress passed an act that put an item labeled 17 between items 1 and 3? Or π? Or 🌭 (U+1F32D)? (Or "U+1F32D" for that matter?) What fundamental thing is <ol> communicating that <dl> would fail at—to the point that it would compel someone to argue against the latter and insist only on the former?

    2. There is one particular type of document in which the correct handling of the ordinal numbers of lists is paramount. A document type in which the ordinal numbers of the lists cannot be arbitrarily assigned by computer, dynamically, and in which the ordinal numbers of the lists are some of the most important content in the document.I'm referring of course to law.HTML, famously, was developed to represent scientific research papers, particularly physics papers. It should come as no surprise that it imagines documents to have things like headings and titles, but fails to imagine documents to have things like numbered clauses, the ordinal numbers of which were assigned by, for example, an act of the Congress of the United States of America.Of course this is not specific to any one body of law - pretty much all law is structured as nested ordered lists where the ordinal numbers are assigned by government body.It is just as true for every state in the Union, every country, every province, every municipality, every geopolitical subdivision in the world.HTML, from the first version right up to the present version, is fundamentally inimical to being used for marking up and serving legal codes as web pages. It can be done, of course - but you have to fight the HTML every step of the way. You have no access to any semantic markup for the task, because the only semantic markup for ordered lists is OL, which treats the ordinal numbers of ordered lists as presentation not content.
    1. This is problematic if we wish to collect widespread metadata for an entity, for the purposes of annotation and networked collaboration. While nothing in the flat-hash ID scheme stops someone from attempting to fork data by changing even a single bit, thereby resulting in a new hash value, this demonstrates obvious malicious intention and can be more readily detected. Furthermore, most entities should have cryptographic signatures, making such attacks less feasible. With arbitrary path naming, it is not clear whether a new path has been created for malicious intent or as an artifact of local organizational preferences. Cryptographic signatures do not help here, because the original signed entity remains unchanged, with its original hash value, in the leaf of a new Merkle tree.

      Author is conflating multiple things.

    2. Retrieving desired revisions requires knowing where to look

      This is one failure of content-based addressing. When the author controls the shape of identifiers (and the timing of publication), they can just do the inverse of Git's data model: they publish forward commitments--i.e., the name that they intend the next update to have. When they want to issue an update, they just install the content on their server and connect that name to it.

    3. Two previously-retrieved documents cannot independently reference each other because their identities are bound to authoritative network services.

      Well, they could. You could do it with an implementation of a URI-compatible hypertext system that uses really aggressive caching.

    1. Hard-Copy Print Options to Show Address of Objects and Address Specification of Links so that, besides online workers being able to follow a link-citation path (manually, or via an automatic link jump), people working with associated hard copy can read and interpret the link-citation, and follow the indicated path to the cited object in the designated hard-copy document.
    2. Every Object Addressable in principal, every object that someone might validly want/need to cite should have an unambiguous address

      This is a good summation of what the Web was supposed to be about. Strange how 30 years on how little we've chipped away at achieving this goal.

    3. designated targets in other mail items

      MIME has ways to refer internally to content delivered in the same message. But what about other (existing) content? Message-ID-based URIs (lot alone URLs) are non-existent (to the best of my knowledge).

      I know the imap URI scheme exists (I see imap URIs all the time in Thunderbird), but they seem unreliable (not universally unambiguous), although I could be wrong.

      Newsgroup URIs are also largely inadequate.

    4. The Hyperdocument "Library System" where hyperdocuments can be submitted to a library-like service that catalogs them and guarantees access when referenced by its catalog number, or "jumped to" with an appropriate link. Links within newly submitted hyperdocuments can cite any passages within any of the prior documents, and the back-link service lets the online reader of a document detect and "go examine" any passage of a subsequent document that has a link citing that passage.

      That this isn't possible with open systems like the Web is well-understood (I think*). But is it feasible to do it with as-yet-untested closed (and moderated) systems? Wikis do something like this, but I'm interested in a service/community that behaves more closely in the concrete details to what is described here.

      * I think that this is understood, that is. That it's impossible is not what I'm uncertain about.

    1. case Tokenizer.LDR: return 0x00 * RSCAssembler.U_BIT; case Tokenizer.LDB: return 0x00 * RSCAssembler.U_BIT; case Tokenizer.STR: return 0x01 * RSCAssembler.U_BIT; case Tokenizer.STB: return 0x01 * RSCAssembler.U_BIT;

      Huh?

    1. Comparing pancakes to file management is an apples to oranges comparison.

      From this point onwards, I'm going to insist that anything that uses the phrase "[...] apples and oranges" omit it in lieu of the phrase "like comparing filesystems and pancakes".

    1. You'll likely use some libraries where people didn't use type checkers and wrote libraries in a complicated enough way that the analysis cannot give you an answer.
      1. You've chosen a bad library and complain about how bad that library is. That's dumb. (There's no line of reasoning for the argument being made here that doesn't reveal a double standard.)

      2. The entire premise (you'll "likely" be using libraries you don't want to—as if it's something you're forced into doing) is flawed. It basically reduces down to the joke from Annie Hall—A: "The food here is terrible" B: "Yes, and such small portions!"

    1. also don't ever give someone an unsolicited code review on Twitter. It's rude.)

      This reminds me of people who have encountered others complaining about/getting involved with something that the speaker has decided "isn't any of their business" (e.g. telling someone without a handicap placard not to park in a handicap space) who then go on and rant about it and demand that others not to tell them what to do.

      In other words:

      Don't ever make unprompted blanket criticism+demands like saying "Don't ever [do something]. It's rude." That's rude.

  5. Aug 2023
    1. Another way I get inspiration for research ideas is learning about people's pain points during software development Whenever I hear or read about difficulties and pitfalls people encounter while I programming, I ask myself "What can I do as a programming language researcher to address this?" In my experience, this has also been a good way to find new research problems to work on.
    1. Non-stupid people always underestimate the damaging power of stupid individuals. In particular non-stupid people constantly forget that at all times and places and under any circumstances to deal and/or associate with stupid people always turns out to be a costly mistake.

      Despite its ordinality, the Fourth law is the one most worth keeping in mind.

    1. The worst part is that Let's Encrypt is preventing us from building a real solution to the problem. The entire certificate authority system is a for-profit scam. It imparts no security whatsoever. But Google gets its money, so it's happy. That means Chrome is happy, and shows no warnings, so the end user is happy too. That makes the website owner happy, and everyone is happy happy happy. But everything is still quite fundamentally fucked. Before Let's Encrypt, people were at least thinking about the problem

      The validity of the author's conclusions notwithstanding, there needs to be a name for this phenomenon.

      Previously: https://www.colbyrussell.com/2019/02/15/what-happened-in-january.html#unacknowledged-un-

    1. IF sym = ORS.ident THEN ORS.CopyId(modid); ORS.Get(sym); Texts.WriteString(W, modid); Texts.Append(Oberon.Log, W.buf) ELSE ORS.Mark("identifier expected") END ;

      This "IF...ELSE Mark, END" region could be reduced by replacing the three lines corresponding to those control flow keywords with a single call to Check:

      Check(ORS.ident, "identifier expected");
      
    1. I do kind of wish I had learned about big-endian dating sooner, though. But alea iacta est and everything.

      Not at all (re "alea iacta est"). Get this: you can at any time make new, perfected labels and affix them to the spines, covering the old ones, but leaving them in place—just like you augmented the original manufactured product with first labels. This would not be a destructive act like rebinding all the Novel Novel workbooks.

    2. The sketchbook should be workman-like; it’s not a fussy tool for self expression, it’s a daily tool.

      This should be the mindset of people self-publishing on the Web, too. Too bad it's not.

    3. (Yes, my handwriting is atrocious, yes I can read it, yes I apologize to all my grade school teachers who gave me Cs in Penmanship. You tried.)

      So crazy seeing this from an art school person.

    1. throw new Error("panic!"); // XXX

      This could be reduced to throw Error("panic!");. And nowadays I prefer to order the check for document ahead of the one for window, just because.

    2. Code for injecting that button and piggy-backing off the behavior of the BrowserSystem module follows.

      Need to explain how this IIFE works, incl. the logic around events and readyState, etc.

    3. Other elements used in this document include code, dfn, em, and p for denoting inline text comprising a snippet of code, a defined term that is not an abbreviation, inline text that should be emphasized, and a paragraph, respectively.

      I failed to cover the use of ul and li tags.`

    4. as of this writing in 2021

      As of today (and for some time before this), and at least as I recall, the status quo with Firefox has changed so monospace text uses the same size as other code, like in Chrome. I may be mistaken, though.

    5. between style tags and not in a script element

      Note that I bungled rule in the code block that precedes it, so it looks like it's in hybrid style/script block. Spot the error:

        body script[type="text/plain+css"]::before {
          content: '\3Cstyle type="text/plain+css"\3E';
        }
      
    1. Additionally, with the old wiki, only registered users could edit the wiki. With the new docs, because it's in a repo on GitHub, anyone can contribute to the documentation

      This is such a weird fuckin' sentence. It's framed as if it's going from narrow to wide-open, but it's actually the opposite.

      wat

    1. it asks for the street address of the lot. I have never seen this information printed on any parking lot in my life. it suggests several "nearby" options; they are actually half a mile away. unable to figure this conundrum out even for myself, i sigh and walk her through installing Park Mobile

      Instead of opening Google Maps...?

    1. This is a double whammy: at the time, it gets dissmissed almost outright for the reason that, essentially, "everyone has an opinion", and then months or years later when it's evident that it did know better and it the official tack was flawed, it doesn't even get the acknowledgment that, yes, in fact that's the mindset that should have gotten buy-in.

      Viz: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37135055

    1. With Go, I can download any random code from at least 2018, and do this: go build and it just works. all the needed packages are automatically downloaded and built, and fast. same process for Rust and even Python to an extent. my understanding is C++ has never had a process like this, and its up to each developer to streamline this process on their own. if thats no longer the case, I am happy to hear it. I worked on C/C++ code for years, and at least 1/3 of my development time was wasted on tooling and build issues.
    1. @1:14:37:

      when you have a Dynabook and you have simulations and multidimensional things as your major way of storing knowledge, the last thing you want to do is print any of it out. Because you are destroying the multidimensionality and you can't run them

    1. It is not unrealistic to forsee the costs ofcomputation and memory plummeting by orders ofmagnitude, while the cost of human programmers increases.It will be cost effective to use large systems like ~. forevery kind of programming, as long as they can providesignificant increases in programmer power. Just ascompilers have found their way into every application overthe past twenty years, intelligent program-understandingsystems may become a part of every reasonablecomputational environment in the next twenty.
    1. A close-up photograph taken by DART just two seconds before the collision shows a similar number of boulders sitting on the asteroid’s surface — and of similar sizes and shapes

      Where's that photograph available, and why isn't it either included or linked here?

    1. This is probably a good place to comment on the difference between what we thought of as OOP-style and the superficial encapsulation called "abstract data types" that was just starting to be investigated in academic circles. Our early "LISP-pair" definition is an example of an abstract data type because it preserves the "field access" and "field rebinding" that is the hallmark of a data structure. Considerable work in the 60s was concerned with generalizing such structures [DSP *]. The "official" computer science world started to regard Simula as a possible vehicle for defining abstract data types (even by one of its inventors [Dahl 1970]), and it formed much of the later backbone of ADA. This led to the ubiquitous stack data-type example in hundreds of papers. To put it mildly, we were quite amazed at this, since to us, what Simula had whispered was something much stronger than simply reimplementing a weak and ad hoc idea. What I got from Simula was that you could now replace bindings and assignment with goals. The last thing you wanted any programmer to do is mess with internal state even if presented figuratively. Instead, the objects should be presented as sites of higher level behaviors more appropriate for use as dynamic components.

      I struggle to say with confidence that I understand what Kay is talking about here.

      What I glean from the last bit about goals—if I understand correctly—is something I've thought a lot about and struggled to articulate, but I wouldn't characterize it as "object-oriented"...

  6. www.dreamsongs.com www.dreamsongs.com
    1. a 1985 broadcast of Computer Chronicles (13:50) on UNIX: As for the future of UNIX, he [Bill Joy] says its Open Source Code

      That's not what she says (but of course you're already aware of this).

      Compare:

      • "open Source Code" (read like German)
      • "open-source code"

      The claim here is that she's using the latter meaning. She is not. It's the former.

    1. @1:26:22

      I wasn’t really thinking about this until sometime in the ’90s when I got an email from someone who said, “Can you tell me if this is the correct meaning of the Liskov substitution principle?” So that was the first time I had any idea that there was such a thing, that this name had developed.[...] I discovered there were lots and lots of people on the Internet having arguments about what the Liskov substitution principle meant.

    2. @41:15

      I used to feel kind of jealous of the electrical engineers because I thought, “At least they have these components and they connect them by wires, and that forces you to really focus on what those wires are.” Whereas software was so plastic that people used to design without thinking much about those wires, and so then they would end up with this huge mess of interconnections between the pieces of the program, and that was a big problem.