maweki

Unfortunately not unstable enough to effectively argue against having to do my homework.

I think the intent is clear. We could just enumerate all strings in size and lexicographical order. Then the task is only to filter, which strings are programs we desire.

It's the same sentiment as "the typing itself is not the issue, it's the order of the button presses that's difficult."

Of course, by Rice's theorem, all interesting questions are undecidable anyway...

> Society doesn't owe me over $500k/year

No it doesn't. But as a human being, you and everybody still deserves a decent living. And our current system clearly does not provide that for a lot of people.

> it is inherently resistant to false positives

By Rice's Theorem, I somehow doubt that.

In light of that, I am wondering why the article opted to go for "However, determining the optimal join order is far from trivial.", when there are hard results in literature.

I was also missing mentioning "sideways information passing", though some of methods are exactly that.

I am wondering whether the company consults literature or whether they fiddle about, mostly reinventing the wheel.

While tedious, you can do the rewrite block-wise from the insertion point and only store a an additional block's worth of the rest (or twice as much as you inserted)

ABCDE, to insert 1 after C: store D, overwrite D with 1, store E, overwrite E with D, write E.

What do you like to call Hungarian notation?

I had a lot of contact with computer science students coming from the other side, meaning they used Z3 or other (SMT) solvers as blackboxes which they just use at a certain point in their algorithm without having thought what theories they are using (the T in SMT) and what's undecidable in general or in that theory.

So I had quite a few "groundbreaking" approaches end in disappointment.

It's important to know the capabilities and limits of your tools.

I'm not a rust or systems programmer but I think it meant that as an ABI or foreign function interface bitfields are not stable or not intuitive to use, as they can't be declared granularily enough.

I think core of the problem in property-based testing that the property/specification needs to be quite simple compared to the implementation.

I did some property-based testing in Haskell and in some cases the implementation was the specification verbatum. So what properties should I test? It was clearer where my function should be symmetric in the arguments or that there is a neutral element, etc..

If the property is basically your specification which (as the language is very expressive) is your implementation then you're just going in circles.

Incremental automatic grounding to SAT works fine for ASP.

The range can be a product type, as can the domain. Most languages are expressive enough that you can create the product type (struct). You're right on point.

> valuing where papers are published over what they contribute

And who is the arbiter of that? This is an imperfect but easy shorthand. Like valuing grades and degrees instead of what people actually took away from school.

In an ideal world we would see all this intangible worth in people's contributions. But we don't have time for that.

So the PhD committee decides on exactly that measure whether there are enough published articles for a cumulative dissertation and if that's enough. What's exactly the alternative? Calling in fresh reviews to weigh the contributions?

We found yaml to be a great exchange format for electronic exam data. It allows us to put student submitted answers and source code into a yaml file and there is no weird escaping. It's very readable with a text editor. And then we just add notes and a score as a list below and then there's the next submission.

For readability of large blocks of texts that may or may not contain various special characters and newlines the only other alternative we have seen was XML, but that is very verbose.

So what the author finds as a negative, the many string formats, are exactly what drew us to yaml in the first place.

Who doesn't own the third edition of the LaTeX Companion book?