19ylram49

> Seems strange to express displeasure with a corporate policy about a website by being disrespectful to unrelated individuals.

What are you even going on about? Whom have I disrespected?

Allow me to repeat myself: It’s one thing restrict offensive language but it’s a whole different beast to mandate specific language.

If, e.g., you tell me to not refer to a certain group of folks using a particular racially offensive term, that’s fine and pretty reasonable, but if you tell me that I must refer to a certain group of folks using a term that you or they chose simply because you or they said so, as far as I’m concerned, we’re slowly walking ourselves into a dictatorship. For the first option, I can simply not do anything and avoid being a “bad” person, but for the second option, I’m implicitly a “bad” person if I don’t explicitly do as told (in this case, aka, ordered).

There’s no way I could ever accept that. Nope. No way.

> Q9: Do I have to use pronouns I’m unfamiliar or uncomfortable with (e.g., neopronouns like xe, zir, ne... )?

>

> Yes, if those are stated by the individual.

Yikes.

I’m 100% in support of all gender identities, sexual orientations, races, etc., and I’ll fight for everyone’s rights and well-being, but this is insanity.

It’s one thing restrict offensive language but it’s a whole different beast to mandate specific language.

Nope. Nope. Nope. I’m not doing it.

Sorry not sorry.

> The fact that a language compiles down to C doesn't mean it compiles down to efficient C.

Where do you see me claiming otherwise?

> At the simplest level, the compiled code could add a bunch of unnecessary function calls and pointers and other forms of indirection that wouldn't be present in hand-written C.

Again, why are you telling me this? Please quote where I claimed otherwise.

> But for a more extreme example, you could also compile an interpreter or VM to C, and it would still be much slower than the equivalent hand-written C code.

The more that I read your response, the more that it seems that you’re debating yourself, because I’m not sure why you’re telling me this. You started your response by telling me that I’m “missing the point” when, in reality, you seem to have not even read my point. My main point was the following:

> If the code from which the resulting machine code is compiled is C, then it’s objectively “as fast as C” […] your resulting program will perform as fast as a C compiler [worth its salt] can get you.

This is true. I made no claims re efficiency; “as fast as C” and “as fast as efficient hand-written C” aren’t interchangeable claims. Forgive me for not assuming efficiency, because I’ve seen a good amount of inefficient hand-written C code in my years.

> This is why "as fast as C" typically refers to normal, hand-written C code—even though there is no formal definition for what "normal C" looks like, it's still a useful description.

Says who though? I’m professionally experienced in C, and as is very clear by this discussion, it’s down to individual interpretations.

> "As fast as C" would commonly be interpreted as "a program written in it will be as fast as a well-written C equivalent"

That’s your interpretation, which is fine, but the objective meaning stands. Even the idea of “well-written C” is, in my experience, fairly subjective amongst C programmers.

I’m not sure that I understand your argument. If the code from which the resulting machine code is compiled is C, then it’s objectively “as fast as C” … because, at the end of the day, it actually is C. Being “as fast as C” means that your resulting program will perform as fast as a C compiler [worth its salt] can get you.

Your comparison to machine code (or human readable assembly code) is less useful in that such a statement means very little until one knows how said machine code is being produced (e.g., manually, from a IR, etc.).

What you said here was literally my point. Maybe you misunderstood me?

Much needed perspective in the age of overly dramatic headlines and straight up misinformation.

> as fast as C

I mean, it actually is C, since the code is transpiled to C.

Those are valid questions when evaluating an unknown technology. How could anyone consider this trolling? Not to digress but have we become too sensitive?

On the contrary, I feel that the stylistic [and sometimes semantic] separation of primitive and boxed types in languages (e.g., `byte` VS `Byte` in Java) improves the developer experience, in that I can very quickly dissect the type of value that I’m dealing with when reading the code.

To the creator:

I actually just went through the trouble of resetting my Product Hunt account (I haven’t been on there in a long time) just to give you that upvote!

Thank you for this! Cheers.

My popcorn got cold. This train-wreck is taking too long. The suspense is killing me.

Now, wave at your camera to the lovely NSA agent tracing you.