zeeboo

It is indeed manufactured specifically to show the existence of "normal" numbers, which are, loosely, numbers where every finite sequence of digits is equally likely to appear. This property is both ubiquitous (almost every number is normal in a specific sense) and difficult to prove for numbers not specifically cooked up to be so.

Go's GC has been precise since 1.4 released about 13 years ago.

You forgot to list the most useful feature of adding generics: people on the internet can no longer say "lol no generics", drastically reducing the amount of garbage comments about Go.

It's for people who think racism is wrong and want a reason to avoid being introspective about what they can do about living in and benefiting from a society built on racism.

Again, it's not just malicious updates. Normal updates can also introduce security vulnerabilities. For example, I have a dependency at v1.0 and v1.0.1 introduces a security bug unintentionally. It is eventually fixed in v1.1. If I wait to update until v1.1, then I am not vulnerable to that bug whereas an automatic update to v1.0.1 would be vulnerable. My point is that in expectation, updating your dependency could be just as likely to remove a security vulnerability as it is to add one.

My statement had nothing to do with intent. Conversely, once a vulnerability is introduced (intentionally or not), you don't want every developer to update their deps to the newly insecure version.

Every change that fixes a security issue implies the existence of a change that introduced the security issue in the first place. Why is bumping a version more likely to remove security issues instead of introduce them?

The reason why older is better than newer has more to do with the fact that the author has actually tested their software with that specific version, and so there's more of a chance that it actually works as they intended.

For example, it doesn't use HTTP/2 (which has a ~100 page RFC and compiles to a ~2MB object file), does not have any load balancing or name resolution engine, and does not handle connection pooling or multiplexing.

Granted, one person's unnecessary is another person's necessary. But since DRPC has a modular design based on small interfaces, many features that are rarely used in gRPC can be excluded and left up to third parties to implement if they want.

Indeed. This is in a thread where the original comment was "I think the best approach would be making & work in basically any scenario." I'm trying to demonstrate the complications of making it work on map accesses.

I apologize if the tone of my previous comment sounded harsh to you or if some of my arguments sounded like strawmen. I am in good faith trying to interpret your comments as best as I am able. I don't feel like you're giving me the same courtesy, so I'll exit the discussion now. Thanks.

> That's a distinction without a difference. `append` does not "explicitly reallocate", it may or may not reallocate, you've no idea. Even if the backing array is full, it might be realloc'd in-place.

Maybe to you, but to me, a pointer going from modifying the value inside of the map to no longer modifying the value inside of the map during any operation is quite a bit different than requiring a reassignment of the slice header. In other words:

    x := make([]int, 5)
    y := &x[0]
    x[3] = 8
    *y = 5
    print(x[0]) // always prints 5

as compared to

    x := make(map[int]int)
    y = &x[0] // btw, is this even valid? let's assume it implicitly does x[0] = 0
    x[3] = 8
    *y = 5
    print(x[0]) // maybe sometimes prints 5?

is meaningfully different. For slices, we know that x[0] will always print 5 until the value of x is reassigned in some way.

> Also technically nothing prevents a GC from reallocating the slice.

It would have the same problem the map does: you'd have to update any pointers into the slice to point to the new slice, otherwise the semantics of the program changes. That is not something the GC currently does, and would require an awful lot of metadata and scanning.

> I've never heard of a hashmap implementation which would do otherwise.

I'm not sure what this is referring to. I agree every map implementation has to reallocate the backing store of values periodically. I was trying to say that keeping the flexibility to reallocate the backing store of the map during GC means that you cannot choose the "writes through pointer are observed in the map" option (at least without a lot of complication around updating pointers) because as a programmer, you would not be able to know if it would do that or not, which is a fairly useless primitive.

> It doesn't (have to) invalidate the pointer though. When resized the map's content get copied to a new backing buffer, the pointer can keep pointing to the old buffer.

That's true, but I don't think it's very comparable to slices. With slices, you have to explicitly reallocate either by creating a whole new slice or using append. Reslicing, indexing, or other operations do not reallocate. On the other hand, maps may end up resizing on any operation that involves them, or even theoretically in the background without any operations (during GC, for example). It would be unfortunate to lose that implementation flexibility, and keeping it means that you're essentially picking the "make a copy" option.