d_tr

Can't these features be toggled?

As software subtends to becoming more and more "solved" ...

Really? Maybe if we do not care about robustness, elegance, coherence, consistency and generally anything beyond making a buck and leaving more waste behind... sure!

This is 7 years old.

Yeah, I actually totally forgot to check the date...

I use Notepad from time to time for quick notes and I have noticed exactly zero friction added to this "workflow". Not sure what you are talking about.

Not having an extra language to deal with and so many features being just a flag away is why I decided to go with QtWidgets for the GUI of a project I am working on at work. And it is so nice to use despite being very old. For the graphically intensive parts I am just using Vulkan. I understand this might not be enough for all types of GUIs though and just wish QtWidgets had some sort of GPU acceleration.

I thought that if you have some idea about how hardware works, it is kind of more or less obvious whether something is synthesizable or not.

but we’d be ruled forever by ageless ghouls.

We all know what the ruled do when they get really pissed. The prospective ghouls know it very well too.

Exactly... Nothing can stop the masses. Plus, we have laws that can change and adapt.

Imagine the kind of garbage that some people consider "robust, working code"...

I'd reframe it as a stupid game..

Get a flip phone. Being reachable and able to reach is good, and you'll still get all the other benefits.

For me, being able to visualize 4D would imply that I can picture four mutually perpendicular axes, something which I find completely impossible for me to do. And I thought it is impossible for any human brain. It would be fascinating if I am wrong.

You have a really sad view on what constitutes a waste of time.

I suspected it would be some feature of this moronic joke of a language and it seems I was right.

Whatever happened to "don't get high on your own supply"?

Linear algebra is pretty straightforward if you learn it properly. Lots of resources seem to confuse matrices with tensors and linear operators because the creators don't really have any idea what they're talking about. Do yourself a favor, get a proper math book and be done with it once and for all.

Never heard about this one, thanks.

Thanks. Maybe I should have stressed this more, but what I had in mind was a more mainstream language suitable for everyday programming too. All the languages mentioned in this thread are great but they are not getting any more popular and you would not use them to build, say, a game or a linear algebra library, right?

Sounds like exactly the same thing since bilinear filtering in the upscaled image only has an effect near the edges of the fat pixels.

Whenever I think about better programming tools, I immediately think about better operating systems. That's what we ultimately need.

Functions map members of a set A to members of a set B. These can simply be Cartesian products whose members are tuples. In my dream PL syntax a function call would be a function name followed by a tuple, and that tuple would be no different than the tuples you would use in any other part of the program (and so you could use all the tuple manipulation library goodies). If the function preserves any other structure of the type, like an identity element, that could be stated so you could have morphisms. And that identity element or other properties could be declared just as other stuff like 'const' are declared, and since the compiler can't verify all these stated properties, it's on the user to provide correct info, just like it's on the user to write a correct program, so nothing lost here, and anything more, like verification by the compiler, would be a bonus.

Mathematicians have been packing all this stuff nicely for a couple of centuries now, maybe we could use more of their work on mainstream computing, and it could also be a nice opportunity to get more people to appreciate math and structure.

Something that has side effects all over the place should just not be called a function, but something else, maybe "procedure" would be an appropriate, clear term.

If they try to take me away from my compiler and my code to do irrelevant stuff I'm just going to quit.

Wouldn't decoding also be an issue?

Is it really so complicated? Genuinely curious.

Just wanted to apologize for the shallow dismissal and the snark. This is going to generate cash flows so the associated activities are totally legit and not parasitic and a waste of oxygen. My gut reaction was not civilized.

I just take some kitchen paper and one of these small thin plastic bags to clean up after my own dog's shit. No need to pay for a service.

Wait, modules work now? Maybe it's time to give them a shot, at least for my own code...

You'll have to decide this for yourself. For me it's good enough. I had a 200 GB FLAC collection many years ago. I can't tell the difference and I don't care to try.

Arch + i3 is what I used until a couple years ago, then decided to move to Wayland, and Sway was buggy on my system so I went vanilla Gnome. It does all I need and also I get to have my settings in a simple script file which is just a bunch of gsettings calls.

I still think that the i3 way of managing windows is amazing, but I actually rarely needed lots of windows in the same workspace tiled.

I only have one extension installed from the package manager for the tray and that's it. Also on Fedora now only because of some proprietary software I need to run, but I also like the distro.

I have never used Spotify so I have no opinion on it, but have you tried YouTube Premium / Music? You can find all the music plus other types of good stuff you might like.