kmiroslav's comments

It's still not the same as perforce's mappings. Even with shallow repos, git will force you to download the entire world each time you pull or fetch.

> Why are programs even structured as sequential lines?

Same reasons books are structured as sequential lines: easier to read for humans.

And the reason why source code is still heavily text based and why introducing more WYSIWIG to it would be disastrous is that all the peripheral tooling would become a nightmare (diffs, code reviews, source control, etc...).

You're right, I misused the term. Statistically, I'm sure the votes were counted accurately and that margin of error is extremely small and would not invalidate that vote.

I was referring to the fact that when a result is so close, the vote might have a different outcome simply based on who shows up to vote that day. If there's a revote, more people against leaving might show up because they didn't realize they would lose. And then if a third vote is held, the result might swing again.

Our country is clearly split right now, but the road ahead for the brexit outcome is terrifying and full of unknowns, as the commentator acutely outlined. Is it worth going through so much turmoil when there is barely an inch above a majority that voted this way?

My answer would be a resounding "yes" if the result was 70%/30%. But 52%/48%? Maybe we should spend some time thinking this through before enacting Article 50. And all the current leaders seem to think this way right now given how discreet they have become as the reality is slowly sinking in.

Technically, sure.

Practically... it's a 52%/48% vote. Hardly a mandate. Some people say a revote might yield an opposite result, which means the current outcome is probably under the margin of error.

It wouldn't exactly be a miscarriage of democracy to not follow through and see how things unfold in the next couple of years, and maybe vote again to see if the gap widens or if our country remains split in the middle on the issue.

At any rate, this comment about the situation is frighteningly deep and chilling.

Interesting, I didn't know about `delete`.

Come to think of it, the trick to make something private in order to "remove" it is one of these very few areas where C++ makes you pay for something you don't use, so I'm not surprised that there is now a special keyword (well, a repurposed keyword) to address that.

Too soon to tell.

Sure, a few countries will try to follow suit and try to leave the EU but imagine a future when, in a couple of years, Britain's economy has dropped below #10, unemployment is at an all time low, the deficit has ballooned, etc...

What do you think EU members will think by then? They will certainly want to stick around.

The bottom line is that the current decision was made by voters who are swayed by immigration and talking points from crafty politicians but who have little understanding of how global economy works.

Let's see what the situation is in 2018.

"Huge code base" is a pretty vague metric. Huge in what, lines of code? Binary size?

I'd argue that neither of these are really a good measure, I'm more interested in the concepts that a source file captures than its size in kb, because these concepts correlate directly to how easy it will be to evolve that code base in the future. There is a point of diminishing return in trying to make the code too compact, which basically means you're optimizing in one dimension at the detriments of all the others.

I was talking about programming languages.

Obviously, message passing is alive and well for network protocols.

Nothing wrong with looking at nature and trying to get inspiration from it (e.g. neural nets) but ever since we realized that flight was easier to implement with chemical combustion than by flapping wings, we know that just because something works in nature doesn't mean it will be easy to replicate for human use.

> If anything I feel the failure of OO languages

What failure exactly?

OOP has flaws but it has certainly proven to be extremely versatile and adaptable over these past decades since even today, it's still the dominant paradigm to solve modern problems in computing.

I don't really understand this obsession with messages.

We're moving away from it. This is not how we program in the 21st century. The last popular language that supported this paradigm (Objective C) is being replaced and will probably be all but gone in just a few years as Swift (not message based) takes it place.

Besides, this idea of message passing is really not that useful for modern programming anyway but a lot of people still have this weird idea that message passing magically solves the problem of data integrity in parallelism. It doesn't. It does nothing to solve it. You can still have deadlocks and you can still have data corruption.

The only approach that has provably improved our problems in this area is immutability, but even that paradigm comes at a cost that sometimes doesn't make it worth the trouble

I don't see why, as long as the IDE sees the build file as a genuine source file for the language it's written in.

You know the situation is bleak when even the legendary Jeff "llama" Minter says he can't make money on the app store.

> so wanting ur borders secured is now literally Hitler.

I never said anything even remotely close to that.

You should take a look at how Hitler looked like in the early 30s as he was beginning his ascension toward Chancellorship.

There are a lot more resemblances with Trump than you think.

Apple has already abandoned the RNC [1]. I'm disappointed that no other large companies have so far.

[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/18/trump-remark...

The only things Trump is right about are the exact same things that every politician says:

> He's right that many Americans are getting screwed by the system. He’s right that the economy is not growing nearly fast enough. He's right that we're drowning in political correctness, and that broken campaign finance laws have bred a class of ineffective career politicians.

It's demagoguery 101.

> The huge triumph of DL has been figuring out that as long as you can pose a problem in a differentiable way and you can obtain a sufficient amount of data, you can efficiently tackle it with a function approximator that can be optimized with first order methods - from that, flows everything.

But this only defines under which circumstances Deep Learning will produce a solution, this doesn't tell us why DL has been so effective. There is little point in an algorithm guaranteed to converge if that algorithm has little applicability.

To me, DL's triumph was being able to make advances in fields that were at a standstill with traditional methods (CV is an obvious one, but natural language processing is a good one as well). This in turn has attracted enough attention that DL is now being considered for a very wide variety of problems. Obviously, DL won't be successful on all of them but that's science as usual.

> Jane Street Capital's Yaron Minsky once said that contrary to popular belief hiring for OCaml developers was easier

No one will ever admit publicly they are having a hard time hiring because of poor technical choices, that would be suicide.

The JVM (well, Java really) has been supporting orders of magnitude of that for many years.