gshrikant

Actually a Forth written in a language apart from English would be a cool idea. The 'words' model maps directly to natural languages and would be straightforward to apply to other languages.

I'm probably being a blockhead but I didn't quite get how the testcase macro is used in instrumenting coverage. Can you explain that?

I don't think that's harsh for the title of the video as posted on HN. Like many others interested in programming, I've tried teaching it to my loved ones and come back with the understanding they either they don't need to or they don't care. A lot of programmers I know tend to assume that other people need to know this stuff or that it is important to their lives somehow which is a narrow view of the world to say the least. My girlfriend might listen to me talk about programming but assuming that she needs to be brought into the fold _somehow_ feels selfish to me. Again this is all subjective and anecdotal. I'm sure the talk would be useful to someone who knows someone who is interested and is just looking for the best way to teach them.

Rightfully so. Part of the problem is the way that we speak about the technology - calling it 'artificial intelligence' when the underlying technology does not resemble true intelligence at all. This raises expectations and lets people use AI as a dumping ground for infeasible ideas.

I agree, it is not the same sandbox as for example, browser sandboxes which restrict capabilities for multiple tabs to a given set of resources. However, its closer to KVM or Docker than to VirtualBox. The host and the 'guest' appear to be much more tightly integrated than in a full virtualized environment.

I'm sorry of this is a trivial question but what does open coding mean? This is the first time I've heard of that term.

Unfortunately, that's not entirely accurate. The problem with language level benchmarking is that the benchmarks are only as good as their implementations and while I agree that different languages encourage different kinds of idioms it seems only fair to use the same data structure/technique when the language offers that choice (as Rust does with intrusive data structures).

The Rust program was not a faithful reimplementation as the author concedes. I expected a more closer comparison given the somewhat broad title of the article. Claiming the perf benefit came out of the thinking encouraged by the language is okay but debatable.

I've been on something of a language tour recently - trying out C++, Typescript, OCaml each for a couple of weeks just to get a taste of living in each ecosystem. I haven't been actively following Rust beyond reading Hacker News articles (of which there are many) about people liking the language.

One of my pet peeves with several "newer" languages that I've looked at is that users don't usually talk about the ugly parts. You can try out C++ for a week visiting forums and r/cpp and you find out fairly quickly what the pain points are and what typical workarounds look like. At that point, it is up to you to decide to what extent you can live with those downsides and where to tread lightly. Same for C, Python, OCaml etc.

To be clear, I don't mean that you should go looking for the bad parts in a language but I do believe you should be aware of them before you invest a lot of your time in it. Unfortunately, a lot of the language love blog posts do not talk about the pain points of the language and what kind of problems it isn't well suited for.

I like Rust and I love several features that Bryan talks about (algebraic data types being one of them) but I would love to read a more balanced evaluation of the language - focusing on aspects which are rough around the edges and expected future improvements.

Can you point me to a resource with details about this? I'm relearning C++ and a comparative evaluation of a language feature like that would be very useful.

I didn't understand the references to TLS (with GMail, for example) and why the goverment likes that better. Is there previous legal precedent which makes TLS more vulnerable or does the protocol itself make snooping on it easier?

I meant the fact that you're actually reinterpreting bits and not really copying them somewhere.

I'm curious, AFAICT Linux uses -fno-strict-aliasing with GCC which promises not to enable strict aliasing based optimizations even at higher optimization levels. But they also rely on the GCC blessed behavior of union based type punning which is redundant in that case.

I suppose union based type punning makes the intent a little clearer (vis a vis memcpy) but that's a weak argument at best.

Not sure about the accuracy of this (or even the original source) but interesting tidbit from what I've read was that driving on the left side of the road is a remnant of British colonial times which lives on in the modern Commonwealth nations (Australia, India etc.).

Exactly this. Science is supposed to be reproducible. Computer science is much more easily reproducible than many other disciplines and it is just sad that many papers don't publish their data/code to reinforce their conclusions.

I could understand Facebook/Google/BigCo. doing so when the data in question might be internal implementation/tech but the trend is far more prevalent.

Sharing experiment data/parameters would not only help people verify your results but also help students learning how to design and carry out experiments.