nousernamesleft

Go has absolutely no claim to being C's successor. It is useless for all the things it makes sense to use C for. That's why it has attracted virtually no C programmers. Go is python's successor if user influx is anything to judge by.

You explicitly stated that any variation from a random distribution must be due to factors other than individual agency. But of course, you know that. How does someone whose posting history is almost entirely blatant trolling like that not manage to get banned more frequently?

Shit, I guess I must have been sick the day we covered "men and women are statistically identical in all choices they make". Was that in calculus?

Individual agency en masse should be a random distribution

What are you basing that assumption on? You are 100% certain that there is no possible way that men and women could have different preferences, priorities or interests?

So live in Mississauga? It is the nicest place anywhere near Toronto anyways. Also you missed Toronto itself which has tons of tech jobs, and richmond hill/markham which absolutely dwarfs Waterloo's imaginary tech industry.

If you don't want to learn haskell then don't. It is the weird insistence on making up ridiculous excuses that I have a problem with. Making up a strawman version of "the haskell community" is entirely unnecessary. Once again, a web designer with no CS education of any sort can do it without any problems at all. Your excuse is obviously baloney.

The fact that there is so much maths talk surrounding Haskell really doesn't help

Nor does it hurt. It only provides something for people to point to while they say "look, people are talking about something I am not interested in, therefore haskell is too hard and I shouldn't bother trying".

And I've watched many, many discussions about Haskell go into deep arguments about category theory

You are not required to participate in any discussions you don't want to participate in.

I want to write a program

So do it? The whole point of my post is that it is perfectly simple to do so. If a non-programmer can teach herself haskell and be productive with it, there's no reason a programmer can't.

I'm always baffled by these kinds of statements. I learned ocaml first, so haskell wasn't too big a leap for me. But I did get to watch my wife go through the process of learning haskell, and she didn't have any more problems than learning any other language.

My wife is a web designer. She has no interest in programming. She taught herself PHP and javascript because she needed to use them. When she finally got to the point where she couldn't tolerate PHP's shittiness anymore, she asked me what she should use instead. I said "scala is a good choice, or you could just skip a step and go straight to haskell". She tried both, decided on haskell because she didn't like lift or play, and proceeded to teach herself haskell. She has never read real world haskell, or even learn you a haskell. I just asked her what a monad is: "Beats me, just use do and the arrow things". She's already finished two big websites written in haskell. This idea that you need to be a compsci phd or something to use haskell is simply not reality.

I have "tried it & stopped". I only tried it to check out webmachine, which appears to the be only web framework in existence that is not stupid and terrible. I stopped because I was done trying webmachine, and went back to my normal language that is much nicer than erlang (haskell).

I don't think my experience with erlang has anything to do with the reasons it isn't more popular though. The biggest thing I see is the lack of module/library/package management. CPAN was a big deal. It is now expected that every language have their own CPAN. I think the lack of one is a huge problem for any language, erlang being a good example. I think it is also a big reason that ocaml and haskell went from being "ocaml is the more commonly used one" to "haskell has ten times the userbase of ocaml".

I am aware of that quote. And that is precisely my point, he is talking about premature optimization, not optimization. What could possibly make you think that the questions in this quiz are examples of premature optimization?

That wasn't what I suggested at all

Obviously I can't tell what you meant to say, but it is what you did say. "If your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless". My thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today. You explicitly said I am "doing the wrong thing". I believe that is incorrect.

These are premature optimization tweaks

How can you apply a blanket "premature" to this? The questions are simply "can this be improved?". There's nothing premature about it, it is a quiz.

Honestly, if your thirteen year old technology choices are still having an impact today, then you're doing the wrong thing regardless.

Really? If you don't randomly flit from fad to fad you are "doing the wrong thing"? What if I made a good choice 15 years ago? Should I have stopped using postgresql simply because I chose it so long ago?

It doesn't ensure they stay relevant but it's a better strategy than watching your target demographic leave your platform.

I don't see any evidence to support that claim. It is a different strategy, but I don't see any indication that it is better. Flushing a few billion dollars down the toilet is a different strategy too, but that doesn't make it better.

38.2% of people got 4/5 or 5/5 questions right. That is amazing. I never would have guessed anywhere even close to that. I would have figured it would be around 15% or so given that guessing randomly would put it at 12.5%. I guess I get a skewed perspective from looking at applicants since presumably most of those 38% are happy with their current jobs.

Why is their stock overvalued?

Because delusional people still didn't learn their lesson from the first bubble.

Do you have any evidence of this

Their P/E is 112. That's the very definition of overvalued. The price of their stock makes the company worth far more than they earn. If you purchased facebook, it would take you 112 years to break even on that "investment" at their current earning rate.

But it in no way ensures they stay relevant. It is literally just blindly flailing around buying anything that gets a lot of users out of fear and having no idea how to maintain their position.

Except the number of active users reinforces his point, it doesn't make it invalid.

At the time of AOL's acquisition of ICQ it had 20 million active users¹

Or 40% of the internet using population of the world.

WhatsApp has 430 million

Or 16% of the internet using population of the world.

40% is clearly closer to "won" than 16% is.

No, you have taken a "stick my head in the sand and pretend the last 30 years of progress didn't happen" and repeating it without understanding. I do web development in haskell. I have thousands of concurrent connections to a single process, which is using 32 cores without problems. There has not been a single race condition, deadlock, mutex bottleneck, etc, etc. Just because you are happy with an absurdly primitive language, doesn't mean those of us in the 21st century are ignorant.

You can get detailed timing data about parse, plan, execute timings from postgresql logging. Parsing is almost always trivial.

And yet you can get >50% speedups for super common queries like "select * from foo where id = ?" if you prepare it once and then use execute instead of just running the select every time. Seems like maybe you're making assumptions you shouldn't.

Those are functions, not stored procedures.

PL/pgSQL function plans are cached

Read your link. They can be cached. You have no way to ensure that they are. And you have no way to have the planning done up front at all, you have to wait until the function is run, and even then every code path in the function has to be exercised to get it planned. And then half the time it doesn't think it should bother to cache the plan anyways. And it is per-session, not shared. So every single connection has to start over with an empty cache every time, and there's tons of duplicate plans in the cache wasting space. Not cool, and by far the biggest thing keeping a ton of "enterprise" customers on SQL server and oracle.

I am responding to what you just said, not the blog post. Again, feel free to write linux only software. But if you do that and then call BSD people liars when they call your linux only software linux only software, then expect to be called on it.

What I did learn (since today) is that we were waiting for them (*BSD) to contact us (GNOME)

Really? All the patches that were sent upstream and ignored for years wasn't contact?

Those are functions, not stored procedures. Every time that function is executed, it is re-parsed and re-planned.

Yes, you can talk them into a slightly less terrible deal than their advertised rates (which is $50 for 5gb, plus your talk/text/network fee costs). That is still absolutely horrible, and essentially useless as an alternative to actual internet access. Normal people hit their 100GB monthly caps on a regular basis just from stuff like game patches, buying new games, watching TV/movies, etc.

Frankly I think 4G is going to wipe out land lines in far more cases than people realise.

Even if it were consistently fast and reliable (which it is neither), at $40/month for half a gig of data? Not likely.

I've always thought of Canada as a fairly responsive democracy.

Nope. We elect one group of corrupt assholes to run things, and then complain about them being corrupt assholes. We keep re-electing them till they do something so hugely scandalous that we elect the other group of corrupt assholes instead. And then keep re-electing them until they fuck up so badly that we switch back to electing the first group of corrupt assholes again. Our government is currently pushing for more restrictive drug laws, including for weed. They are pushing for mandatory minimum sentences for non violent crimes, and for privatized prisons. These things are almost universally opposed by Canadians. It simply doesn't matter, we re-elect them anyways.

If done right they can be huge. The fact that they do nothing when you just do "prepare" followed immediately by "execute" in place of just running the query directly is not a problem with postgresql or prepared statements, it is a problem of doing something dumb. For simple selects the parsing and planning stage can be 90% of the time spent. The problem is that postgresql doesn't have stored procedures, so you have to make sure every connection is initialized by running all of your "prepare"s before it is made available to the pool.

Assuming multiple application servers despite 99.9999% websites not needing them doesn't make much sense.