HN user
It’s a short circuiting conjunction. Consider `aliceWantsADrink && bobWantsADrink`. If Alice doesn’t want a drink, she knows it’s not the case that both of them want a drink. Since she says “maybe” instead of “no” she signals to Bob that she wants a drink, and so he concludes they both want a drink.
You should check out xkill, which transforms the mouse into the window killing button
I can’t recall exactly, I want to say 16 vCPUs and 64GB. How well a project can make use of the cores depends on how wide your dependency graph is vs how tall, as the unit of parallelism is a package.
The EC2 instance was on continuously, and I would ssh+tmux in. You could probably replace this with a server plugged in under your desk, depending on how much you trade off operational costs and capital costs.
More often than not I wanted passing tests to send something for review. If I needed an artifact, I would publish a docket image on an internal registry.
Not for correctness, but I was running low on disk
I worked as a Haskell developer for a year and a half. The best productivity boost I had was switching to compiling on an EC2 instance. I saved battery, sped up compiles with greater parallelism than my XPS had cores for, and didn’t have to worry about cleaning up ~/.stack
Attention to detail and thoughful design is what Chime is all about.
Sorry for the nitpick, but a typo in this particular sentence was too good to pass up.
I don’t think this an entirely fair comparison. STM provides essentially primitive operations, Async just builds a higher level API on top of them for common pattern. Not unlike the relationship between errgroup and go routines.
Strategies solve a different problem, in giving control of evaluation order of pure values. STM is aimed more at traditional multi threading
It also creates a filter for investment in the patch. If the submitter doesn’t bother to do a second round for trivial revisions, it would have been a waste of time for the maintainer to read the patch deeply.
I didn't read the hobgoblin the same way as the author being purely critical. I read it as a defense: a similarity between commands would make it easier to choose the wrong one. Removing a branch is a more destructive than deleting a file, so it should be a command chosen with conscious care rather than muscle memory.
I'd say it's good in the sense that it is readable provided you are familiar with the syntax for list comprehensions and appendings, and obviously correct if you know quicksort.
(Enough of) Education has been free since at least 2010 in my experience. Employability is not.
Care to elaborate?
Contrast seems too low on osx+chrome, or maybe its just poor eyesight on my part.
I think wishful thinking twisted the title in my head, into reading of a lisp with a type system like Haskell's.
Don't you think an example where the type system has a visible impact would be appropriate? As it is now, none of the examples show anything that doesn't look like vanilla lisp. I think what makes the Haskell type system nice to use is inference along with type assertions. Do you have type assertions, or is the implementation of types behind the scenes until a type mismatch occurs?
Or current_time >= time_you_set_to_expire...
Or they saw a CNN special report on internet hackers and think they know what it is.
Congratulations on your decision. A lot of the time I feel like I should drop out of school, but don't because status quo just seems easier.
A novice was trying to fix a broken Lisp machine by turning the power off and on. Knight, seeing what the student was doing spoke sternly – “You can not fix a machine by just power-cycling it with no understanding of what is going wrong.”
Knight turned the machine off and on.
The machine worked. [http://planetvermont.com/v9n2/machine.html]
Cool. But it's pretty easy to cheat, just resize your paddle to take up the entire screen and you auto-win.
AFAICT, it isn't very intuitive on how to get started. Why am I told how to undo and redo, when I'm not told how to do?
The link to "how-to-read-an-unlabeled-sales-chart.html" has an extra s after unlabeled.
My two cents is that the social scene in Caltech has a high degree of variability with respect to which House you live in.
If you do like his advice, I would not choose Caltech if the option presents itself. I happen to like it, and I don't know if other students are just "whiny for fun," but I hear a lot of complaints about everything under the sun that is germane to the institute. Moreover, CS is a very theoretical option. I'll be finishing my sophomore year this spring and I don't feel as though I really have the programming chops to really be useful in any sort of internships. My case is a little different though, I didn't think I wanted to option in CS until the beginning of the winter quarter.
I wasn't able to. After a bit of hunting I realized the missing packages were on their site. Some of those make just failed, and on others it would appear as though make install went through but were not afaict installed. I gave up.
Installation is a bit of a pain, at least on OS X. It complains of a bunch of packages missing. Consider having it available through macports.
Measuring time of computation is counting the number of primitive operations. I'd say a language is a collection of capabilities that play nicely. Given one language, we can create a second that is also RE by taking each instruction in the first and adding a nop, or calculate ack(10,10) and throws it away, or whatever. Any algorithm that the second language computes with at least one step runs in fewer primitive steps in the first language by design.
Beyond a theoretical consideration, in practice there is much more than preference providing the difference between languages. If they were the same, you shouldn't have any trouble implementing combinators in brainfuck.
To say that all languages are equivalent because they are Turing Complete is just not true. That means they can decide the same class of problems, it does not mean they can or do decide them in the same way. In particular some languages are inherently faster than others.
Why is this something that people do?