jaccarmac
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
"Crashing is loud" below is a phrase to combine with "remote error recovery" from the link above. Erlang/OTP wants application structure that is peculiar to it, and makes that structure feel ergonomic.
> If I ship a feature that has a type error on some code path ... How is "let it crash" helpful to my customer?
The crash can be confined to the feature instead of taking down the entire app or corrupting its state. With a well-designed supervision structure, you can also provide feedback that makes the error report easier to solve.
However, while a type error in some feature path is a place that makes type annotations make sense, type annotations can only capture a limited set of invariants. Stronger type systems encode more complex invariants, but have a cost. "Let it crash" means bringing a supervisor with simple behavior (usually restart) or human into the loop when you leave the happy path.
But while I have had a broad interest in compilers for years and years, it feels difficult-to-impossible to actually complete any of it. Part of it's general depression and time management, part is looking at the long story of these projects and the lack of progression: Stuck in a rut of mediocrity.
https://github.com/rkoeninger/ShenSharp https://github.com/jaccarmac/junkcode/tree/79ea647d4ddbe41cf...
Hey, that's (close to) the traditional Smalltalk introduction-trick! And this has been available since 1.1? How does one concretely do that in Java and why is it not widely known?
https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2024/04/a-voters-guide...
But I'll start with the simple version of the critique. Individual commuters make their decision about whether to make a trip based in part on the time that trip will take (a function of road congestion). Thus, adding road capacity will temporarily lower the cost of a trip, allowing more people to make it until congestion reaches the pre-expansion level. Housing does not have this problem because consumers make decisions about where to live much more infrequently.
As you can tell, "induced demand" is a bad if rather catchy name. To be fair to urban planners, the throughput of an expanded road does increase. However, the experience of using it stays the same or gets worse, and the cost (both $ and space) is disproportionate. Is the pro-transit argument, which I subscribe to.
Of course, the real world includes large real estate firms which are making frequent decisions on housing stock. So I agree that the build-more-housing-and-everything-will-improve crowd is wrong. But I don't think YIMBY/transit and anti-transit are the only choices. The former is a common archetype these days.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/jaccarmac; my proof: https://keybase.io/jaccarmac/sigs/wfT7ILIs1wAwGEodEeUYGMB6L2KNBTcPayCvAcCUc84 ]
https://findkismet.com/: 0c450486af0df24c41506f8391f15cc85e7667fbfdb6668fee8987bdbc4aba5a