HN user
I am not sure what is "the draft human genome" you are talking about. Two separate human genomes were published in 2001: the HGP genome and the celera genome. The HGP genome then didn't use Venter DNA. It evolved into the current human reference genome. The celera genome contained Venter DNA but it has been completely forgotten nowadays.
No, at initial release, the human genome from the NIH side was done by bac-to-bac, not by shotgun.
You are confused by the human genome project vs the celera genome project. No, the human genome project didn't include his sample.
Well, they can keep stealing as long as someone open weight their models.
Going from something like "Go lacks a builtin arena allocation" to "Go risks becoming the COBOL" is a long stretch. First, Go is slower than C/C++/rust without complex memory allocation. Introducing an arena allocator won't fix that. Second, arena allocation often doesn't work for a lot of allocation patterns. Third, plain arena allocator is easy to implement when needed. Surely a builtin one would be better but Go won't fall without it.
How is "full booked" a real shame?
Pypy is 10x faster and is compatible with most cpython code. IMHO it was a big mistake not to adopt JIT during the 2-to-3 transition.
Are there studies to show those paying $200/month to openai/claude are more productive?
I wouldn't say this easily if I were the sacrifice, especially as a visa holder.
I guess Harvard saw the decision at Columbia made the situation worse [1], so they decided to make a different one.
[1] https://www.science.org/content/article/nih-freezes-all-rese...
People here have little idea about how Harvard works. Harvard is financially vulnerable. It is currently running on a deficiency considering the endowment. And Harvard can't freely use most endowment for personnels anyway. If the government takes away funding, Harvard will have a financial crisis. I guess the leadership made the decision in hope someone could stop the government before bad things happen but when bad things do happen, you will probably see mass layoffs of researchers in particular in life sciences and biomedical research.
Some part of this article is opinionated. Curl may be well written but this is more likely to be the result of the overall structure than the number of characters per line. Actually I don't know whether curl is well written. Popularity doesn't always equate to code quality. I have used curl APIs before. I don't like them.
std::deque typically uses chunked arrays. It is more complex but tends to be faster than a ring buffer based implementation.
The most important part is to have a standard, which doesn't need to be perfect. On argument parsing, I actually think the GNU way is the best so far. I have seen various deviations from GNU and I personally regard all of them inferior.
argp parses `foo --bar -1` as `foo --bar=-1` the way you expect when `--bar` takes an value, but Kong treats `-1` as a flag.
This seems a bug in Kong. Has someone reported it?
When I use a command-line tool, I don't know and don't care if it is written in Go or not. I just want to use it the same way as most of the other traditional Unix tools. The Go style gets in the way. We would have much more consistent CLI between tools if Go had just followed the GNU style at the beginning. The same can be said to many other languages like Nim that want to reinvent command-line argument parsing with their standard libraries. https://xkcd.com/927/ came to mind.
In general, command-line argument parsers should just follow the GNU style. No more, no less. Deviations confuse users as it is not immediately obvious to them what rules a parser is imposing.
options can have multiple values: -a 1 2 3 means that a is an array/slice/struct of three numbers of value [1,2,3]
Allowing multiple values is inconsistent because you can't tell in "./cmd -a 1 2 3" whether 2 and 3 are positional arguments or arguments for -a. This is not a GNU style. The GNU way is "./cmd -a 1 -a 2 -a 3" (or "./cmd -a 1,2,3"). This package supports that, which is good.
option values can be separated by a space, equal sign, or nothing: -a1 -a=1 -a 1 are all equal
"--a=1" is a GNU style but "-a=1" is not. This is a minor issue, though.
Also, does this package support "--"? Everything following "--" should be treated as positional arguments.
Too little, too late
You need to know what is good code. Opinions may vary a lot between programmers, even senior ones. The Clean Code cult would tell you to find good code there but that is the most poisonous programming book I have read.
The next major Julia release, 1.12, is likely to appear in mid-2025. It will finally include the ability to generate static binaries of a reasonable size, appropriate for distribution.
I would be thrilled if Julia had this in early days, but now it is a little too late. I have jumped the boat.
People often forget the best way to win a tech debate is to actually do it. Once multiple developers criticized that my small program is slow due to misuse of language features. Then I said: fine, give me a faster implementation. No one replied.
I agree. How to deal with deletions is a 101 of hash table implementation. Many CS majors could get it right or at least know about the caveat. It is amusing that many high-quality posts on hash tables are buried in the "new" section of HN while this half-baked toy floats to the front page, with 83 github stars at the moment. People don't know what they are upvoting for.
Sure, nothing beats bootcamp but that is not strictly macos. Apple's GPTK released last year seems to have greatly advanced gaming compatibility. Probably lots of games still don't work but it looks promising and is getting better. Hope Apple can continue to put resources into that.
The only area that saw significant retreat in macos is gaming.
Mac gaming is probably getting better thanks to wine, crossover, GPTK and Whisky [1]. I am not a gamer but I have seen others playing serious Windows games like FF7 remake (not sure if that counts) on mac.
PyTorch everywhere
It seems that Julia has been used for numerical stuffs often. Its redmonk ranking is above some great languages like nim and erlang. This is already an achievement for a community-backed open-source language. By "much popularity", I meant "as popular as Java or Python". I had a high hope for Julia.
all serious numerical languages have that. it's more natural
And almost all serious general-purpose languages use 0-based. It is more natural at least to me. You see, this is exactly why 1-based index of Julia is disliked by many.
It is not just syntax. While python has Java-like OOP from a far, Julia has a distinct language design. It doesn't have a concept of "class" in the traditional sense. It instead has multiple dispatch, which is very flexible but sometimes too flexible to control. I found Julia harder to write for an averaged programmer. Furthermore, the time-to-first-plot problem had pissed off many early adopters (I know a few and they won't come back) and apparently remains a problem for some [1].
Julia is a great niche language for what it is good at. It will survive but won't gain much popularity.
[1] https://discourse.julialang.org/t/very-slow-time-to-first-pl...
Also want to add that getting a formal certificate for learning disabilities is expensive. From what I heard, an ADHD test costs a couple of thousand USD, which could mean a lot to low income families.
Fully agree. The python community just wouldn't admit they lack someone as good as Mike Pall or the V8 team. The python performance in the computer language benchmark games is so embarrassing especially on the benchmarks not requiring external libraries [1].
[1] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...