1. 6

    As a (primarily) C programmer who has been eyeing Rust from a distance with some interest, the author makes a number of compelling points – but from what I’ve read elsewhere…

    No integer overflow

    Enough said.

    No, very much not enough said – if this is an issue you care about, this is a gross oversimplification. Such a description might be accurate for a language with automatic bignum-promotion, where integer overflow can be really said to (within the bounds of memory) actually not happen – Python, say. But the situation in Rust, while yes, probably preferable to the one in C in most ways, isn’t that simple.

    1. 2

      Yeah, it wasn’t obvious to me why that was ”enough said.” I use (unsigned) overflow on purpose quite a lot in audio programming.

      I think it’s nice how Swift made overflow trap, using regular arithmetic operators, but added versions prefixed with & to opt-out, e.g. &+.

      1. 4

        In case you didn’t check the article 1amzave linked:

        Rust has .wrapping_<op> methods for 2’s compliment arithmetic (and a few other variants, saturating, checked - which gives a handable error on overflow, overflowing - which wraps and tells you if it wrapped), as well as a Wrapping<T> type that makes the normal operators wrapping.

        It doesn’t have a fancy &+ syntax though, which is probably a good thing IMO given how rarely wrapping arithmetic is used in general.

        1. 1

          Yes, I didn’t know about those before coming here for the comments!

          &+ is not really special syntax in Swift though, since it allows user-defined operators, for better or worse.

      2. 2

        Rust panics on overflow by default, but provides functions that explicitly allow integer overflow wrapping, as well as functions for checked arithmetic and saturating arithmetic:

        https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.u32.html

        This seems like the best of all approaches to me.

        1. 4

          Rust panics on overflow by default

          But not in release mode. (This has bitten me, painfully!) Worth being vigilant while coding in case your code might run into edge cases in production it doesn’t in test.

          1. 1

            Thanks for pointing that out! I somehow missed that important detail. I’ll have to keep that in mind!

      1. 20

        C things I miss in Rust: fast compile times. 😉

        Edit: I really love Rust and what the Rust folks are doing and have accomplished. I haven’t even tried the new incremental compilation yet!

        1. 5

          For me, all the tooling for analysis. I still recommend high-security systems with skilled developers and a budget default on C subsets just cuz of all the tooling available.

        1. 1

          Very fun idea and also fun to pronounce the words, knowing Swedish (Ü isn’t used though.)

          1. 3

            I spent some time around the JS community as this was being designed, and the issues were known, people just didn’t seem to care/thought that arguments like these were some kind of purism/idealism that wasn’t useful. That was my impression at least.

            1. 9

              I think “lisper” on the HN version of this article had a great summary:

              “What’s really going on is that, in Lisp, code is a particular kind of data, specifically, it’s a tree rather than a string. Therefore, some (but not all) of the program’s structure is represented directly in the data structure in which it is represented, and that makes certain kinds of manipulations on code easier, and it makes other kinds of manipulations harder or even impossible. But (and this is the key point) the kinds of manipulations that are easier are the kind you actually want to do in general, and the kind that are harder or impossible are less useful. The reason for this is that the tree organizes the program into pieces that are (mostly) semantically meaningful, whereas representing the program as a string doesn’t. It’s the exact same phenomenon that makes it easier to manipulate HTML correctly using a DOM rather than with regular expressions.”

              1. 3

                I don’t think tree vs string is the difference. For all languages, it is a string of bytes on disk and a tree once parsed in memory. Lisp just has a closer correspondence between tree and string, which makes it cognitively easier. I don’t know where somebody would draw the line that they are considered “homo”, equal.

                1. 6

                  I think at the point that the tree-literal syntax is the same as the language-proper syntax is a pretty good point to consider it equal. You can’t express arbitrary javascript programs in JSON, or any other C-family languages code in data-literal syntax. The lisp family however uses the same syntax for representing data as it does for representing its program.

                  1. 5

                    Lisp just has a closer correspondence between tree and string, which makes it cognitively easier

                    Maybe not just cognitively but also in terms of programming. Many languages have complicated parsing and contexts where transformations aren’t as simple as an operation on a tree with regularity in its syntax and semantics.

                    1. 2

                      Right. Von Neumann machine code is homoiconic, but I don’t think it exhibits many of the purported advantages of Lisp?

                      1. 2

                        The one’s Ive seen are definitely harder than LISP’s to work. Now, might be different if we’re talking a Scheme CPU, esp if microcoded or PALcoded. With SHard, it can even be built in Scheme. :)

                1. 20

                  I’ve used C for a while (and I now work on a C/C++ compiler) and I see it this way: you should be very reluctant to start a project in C, but there’s no question you should learn it. It mainly boils down to point 3 in the article: “C helps you think like a computer.”

                  But really, it helps you think like most computers you’re going to use. This is why most operating systems are written in C: they are reasonably “close to the metal” on current architectures. It’s not so much that this affords you the opportunity for speed (it does, since the OS or even the CPU is your runtime library), but because you’re not that far removed from the machine as an API. Need to place values in a specific memory location? That’s easy in C. Need to mix in some assembly? Also pretty easy. Need to explicitly manage memory? Also not hard (to do it well is another matter). Sure, it’s possible in other languages, but it’s almost natural in C. (And yes, not all I’ve mentioned is strict C, but it’s supported in nearly all compilers.)

                  All this doesn’t mean I like it, but that’s the reality. I’d rather see more variety in computer architectures such that something safer than C were the default. I’m always looking for kind of machine that essentially rejects the C model so much so that C would actually be awful to use. Unfortunately, those things tend to not have hardware.

                  1. 10

                    I found that learning C was not very helpful in this regard (though I have no doubt this is partly because I was badly taught in university). What finally made it click was learning Forth. C’s attempt at a type system makes it easy to imagine that things other than bytes have reified form at runtime, whereas Forth gives you no such illusion; all that exists is numbers.

                    When I came back to C afterwards, everything made so much more sense. Things that used to be insane quirks became obvious implications of the “thin layer of semantic sugar over a great big array of bytes” model.

                    1. 6

                      I had this same problem, but for me the thing that made everything to click together was using assembler. Pointers (and other C types to some extend) are really wonderful abstraction, even though they are “a bit” thin. And that power of abstraction hides all the machine details if one does not yet know how to look past it.

                    2. 5

                      The reasons you mention are really why I still use it at all. It comes with me to almost any device I feel like programming, and I do think it sometimes makes sense.

                      For example, programming the GBA is quite easy in C, and it doesn’t really matter if someone breaks my game by entering a really long name or whatever (in fact, I love things like that.)

                      I hope Rust will one day be my trusty companion but it’s not quite there yet.

                      1. 3

                        Well Rust is getting there. I sometimes think it would be fun to program such systems but when I think about using C for that I always cringe, so Rust might be a viable option in the future.

                    1. 4

                      At the other end of the spectrum, I feel like everything that used to be hard is pretty easy now, or at least way easier. Compilers, debuggers, static analysers, programming languages… writing systems software and embedded stuff is so much easier than it used to be (very possible that I was just doing it wrong before, too.)

                      1. 6

                        His article is primarily about webdev which seems to be uniquely on a fast moving treadmill of continual change and reinvention. The areas you mention are older and more established and most people agree on the right way to do them which means we’ve automated the right ways quite a bit. In the browser and JS worlds the right way changes every few months which means the tools and automation changes every few months too. That’s a lot of mental overhead that’s not directly related to the problem you want to solve usually.

                        1. 2

                          Oh, yes, I know and agree. I keep up with web stuff even though I don’t do it often. I guess my comment was only tangentially related.

                        2. 2

                          Great point. Even in web, it wouldve been way harder to achieve the current level of functionality. There would be an uphill learning process for components without StackOverflow or Javascript-based testbeds for practice. The Web 2.0-style functionality also required native proxies/plugins on client, stuff like Perl on server, and so on. Let’s not forget how hard the portable, auto-updating, look/act-same-everywhere, native apps they effectively replaced are still hard to build if wanting experience similar to native apps on each platform.

                          It was always hard to balance these conflicting goals in or outside of a browser. The trick was building manageable solutions to problems that we then stick with. The churn and endless reinvention of basics are what makes web a pain in many places. I say many places since some take saner approach.

                        1. 2

                          Impressed at how quickly @jvns has been progressing on rbspy, and as always it’s a delight to read about it!

                          1. 16

                            Nope. That’s why I quit tech. What to do next, I don’t know.

                            I worked at a popular streaming service for the past 7 years.

                            1. 5

                              Have you considered working a tech position for a successful non-profit like a hospital? Probably face plenty of BS like anywhere else in tech but at least doing net good with range of pay available. If you feel you need out, though, then good luck on next move whatever it is. :)

                              1. 8

                                First of all I’m leaving the US and moving back to the Nordic (Iceland.) I had a really hard time in the Bay Area, such incredible wealth distributed so unevenly. I’d step over homeless people who might not even be alive, on my walk to work, and feel less human every day. The treatment of my own mental health issues was also appalling, and I knew I’d be one of those people if it got bad enough (or more realistically, I’d be deported.) Once I’m back in a place that’s got the basics right (IMO) my quality of life won’t be tied to my salary/work benefits so much, so that will make it easier to find something that feels meaningful, I think.

                                1. 5

                                  Yeah, they do seem to take care of their own much better in the Nordic countries. I’ve enviously noticed that. Well, if they have good place to live that’s cheap and reliable Internet, then you should be able to find good remoting opportunities. Maybe a mix of local and remote, too, if trying to balance something that will definitely keep paying you vs something fulfilling that’s uncertain over time.

                                2. 7

                                  I second this. Get into non-profits.

                                  For example libraries are facing an incredible challenge – to aggregate knowledge and make it widely accessible. Right now, when you research a topic, you evaluate scattered pieces of information from all over the web or maybe fire up an outdated library search engine to find some papers that never made it to the Google-verse.

                                  Can’t we do any better?

                              1. 4

                                A solid list, with one question mark.

                                Lynn Conway started life as a man. does this mean he/then her achievements give equally credited to men/women?

                                1. 52

                                  No. Trans women are women.

                                  1. 10

                                    Thank you . I want to live in a world where this is just taken as a given. Lets start with our little world here people.

                                    1. 8

                                      What is the goal of creating a list of women in CS? If it’s to demonstrate to young girls that they can enter the field, it seems unproductive to include someone who grew up experiencing life as a man.

                                      If the goal of creating the list is some kind of contest, then it’s counterproductive for entirely different reasons.

                                      1. 28

                                        someone who grew up experiencing life as a man

                                        Do you know any trans women who have said they grew up experiencing life as a man? I know quite a few and none of them have expressed anything like this, and my own experience was certainly not like that.

                                        However, if you mean that we were treated like men, with the privilege it brings in many areas, then yes, that became even more obvious to me the moment I came out.

                                        Regardless, trans folks need role models too, and we don’t get a lot of respectful representation.

                                        1. 21
                                          $ curl https://www.hillelwayne.com/post/important-women-in-cs/ | grep girl | wc -l
                                          0
                                          

                                          The motivation for the post are clearly layed out in the first paragraph:

                                          I’m tired of hearing about Grace Hopper, Margaret Hamilton, and Ada Lovelace. Can’t we think of someone else for once?

                                          It’s a pretty pure writeup for the sake of being a list you can refer to.

                                          On your statement about “girls”. It’s quite bad to assume a list of women is just for kids, it’s also bad to assume trans women can’t be examples to (possibly themselves trans) girls.

                                          1. 4

                                            That’s not a motivation, that’s a tagline.

                                            The primary reason I would refer to a list like this is if I was demonstrating to a young woman considering CS that, perhaps despite appearances, many women have historically made major contributions to the field. I’m not sure what else I would need something like this for.

                                            1. 5

                                              Maybe its not for you to distribute but for women to discover …

                                            2. 1

                                              I don’t see why it’s bad to assume that. It feels like it would be a pretty serious turn off to me if I we’re looking for successful women and found people who were men into adulthood. I find it hard to imagine that I’m unique in that feeling. I’m sure it feels good for trans people but I’d that’s your goal admit the trade-off rather than just telling people they’re women and not transwomen.

                                              You can berate people for not considering trans-women to be the same as born women but it will likely just keep them quiet rather than convince them to be inspired.

                                              1. 19

                                                people who were men into adulthood

                                                Now I’m curious what your criteria are, if not self-identification. When did this person cease to be a man, to you?

                                                When they changed their name?

                                                When they changed their legal gender?

                                                When they started hormones?

                                                When they changed their presentation?

                                                When they got surgery?

                                                What about trans people who do none of that? E.g. I’ve changed my name and legal gender (only because governments insist on putting it in passports and whatnot,) because I had the means to do so and it bothered me enough that I did, is that enough? What about trans people who don’t have the means, option, or desire to do so?

                                                When biologist say that there’s not one parameter that overrides the others when it comes to determining sex¹, and that it makes more sense to just go by a person’s gender identity if you for whatever reason must label them as male/female, why is that same gender identity not enough to determine someone’s own gender?

                                                1. http://www.nature.com/news/sex-redefined-1.16943
                                            3. 16

                                              If it’s to demonstrate to young girls that they can enter the field, it seems unproductive to include someone who grew up experiencing life as a man.

                                              This is a misunderstanding of transexuality. She grew up experiencing life as a woman, but also as a woman housed in a foreign-feeling body and facing a tendency by others to mistake her gender.

                                              Does that mean she faced a different childhood from many other women? Sure. But she also shared many of the disadvantages they faced, frequently to a much stronger degree. Women face difficulty if they present as “femme” in this field, but it is much more intense if they present as femme AND people mis-bucket them into the “male” mental box.

                                          2. 14

                                            If they identified as a woman at the time of accomplishment, it seems quite reasonable that it’d count. For future work, just think about it in terms of trans-woman extends base class woman or at least implements the woman interface.

                                            In any event, your comment is quite off-topic. Rehashing this sort of stuff is an exercise that while interesting is better kept literally anywhere else on the internet–if you have questions of this variety, please seek enlightenment via private message with somebody you think may be helpful on the matter, and don’t derail here.

                                            1. 7

                                              The point of this is not to give more achievements to women… It’s to showcase people who were most likely marginalized.

                                              1. [Comment removed by author]

                                                1. 9

                                                  This is definitely not what life is like for trans people pre-transition.

                                              2. 12

                                                It’s rude to talk about people’s gender like this fyi

                                                1. 0

                                                  It’s ridiculous to allow this framing to suppress a reasonable point.

                                                  1. 10

                                                    It’s not a reasonable point. This is not the place to make whatever point you’re trying to make.

                                                2. 3

                                                  Depends on where a person is on political spectrum. I’d probably note they’re trans if targeting a wide audience, not if a liberal one, and leave person off if a right-leaning one.

                                                  1. 5

                                                    what they dont know wont hurt them. As far as the right is concerned , she is a woman …

                                                  2. 2

                                                    It is irrelevant, and you asking this is offensive.

                                                    1. -1

                                                      Interesting question. I think it may be met with hostility, as it brings to mind the contradiction inherent in both claiming that sex/gender is arbitrary or constructed and also intentionally emphasizing the achievements of one gender. Based on the subset of my social circle that engages in this kind of thing, these activities are usually highly correlated. Picking one or the other seems to get people labeled as, respectively, some slang variation of “nerd”, or a “TERF”.

                                                      1. 34

                                                        Can we please not for once? Every time anything similar to this comes up the thread turns into a pissfight over Gender Studies 101. Let’s just celebrate Conway’s contributions and not get into an argument about whether she “counts”.

                                                        1. 10

                                                          Much as I sympathize, transgender is controversial enough that merely putting a trans person on a list that claims all its members are a specific gender will generate reactions like that due to a huge chunk of the population not recognizing the gender claim. That will always happen unless the audience totally agrees. So, one will always have to choose between not mentioning them to avoid noise or including them combating noise.

                                                          1. 20

                                                            I would like to live in a world where trangender isnt controversial and we dont have to waste energy discussing this. Can lobsters be that world please ?

                                                            1. 18

                                                              Perhaps this is why we get accused of pushing some kind of agenda or bringing politics into things, by merely existing/being visible around people who find us ”controversial” or start questioning whether our gender is legit or what have you. I usually stay out of such discussions, but sometimes feel the need to respond to claims about trans folks that I feel come from a place of ignorance rather than bigotry or malice, but most of the time I’m proven wrong and they aren’t really interested in the science or whatever they claim, they just want an excuse to say hateful things about us. I’ve had a better than average experience on this website, when it comes to responses.

                                                              1. 6

                                                                I cant speak for everyone on the side that denies trans identity. Just my group I guess. For us and partly for others, the root of the problem is there is a status quo with massive evidence and inertia about how we categorize gender that a small segment are countering in a more subjective way. We dont think the counters carry the weight of status quo. We also prefer objective criteria about anything involving biology or human categorization where possible. I know you’ve heard the details so I spare you that

                                                                That means there will be people objecting every time a case comes up. If it seems mean, remember that there’s leftists who will be quick to counter anything they think shouldn’t be tolerated on a forum (eg language policing) on their principles. For me, Im just courteous with the pronouns and such since it has no real effect on me in most circumstances: I can default on kindness until forced to be more specific by a question or debate happening. Trans people are still people to me. So, I avoid bringing this stuff up much as possible.

                                                                The dont-rock-the-boat, kinder approach wouldve been for person rejecting the gender claim to just ignore talking about the person he or she didnt think was a woman to focus on others. The thread wouldve stayed on topic. Positive things would be said about about deserving people. And so on. Someone had to stir shit up, though. (Sighs)

                                                                And I agree Lobsters have handled these things much better than other places. I usually like this community even on the days it’s irritating. Relatively at least. ;)

                                                                1. 6

                                                                  For us and partly for others, the root of the problem is there is a status quo with massive evidence and inertia about how we categorize gender that a small segment are countering in a more subjective way.

                                                                  I know you’re a cool dude and would be more than happy to discuss this with you in private, but I think we all mostly agree that this is now pretty outside the realm of tech, so continuing to discuss it publicly would be getting off topic :) I’ll DM you?

                                                                  1. 7

                                                                    I was just answering a question at this point as I had nothing else to say. Personally, Id rather the political topics stay off Lobsters as I voted in community guidelines thread. This tangent couldnt end sooner given how off topic and conflict-creating it is.

                                                                    Here’s something for you to try I did earlier. Just click the minus next to Derek’s comment. This whole thread instantly looks the way it should have in first place. :)

                                                                  2. 4

                                                                    I find the idea that everyone who disagrees with these things should avoid rocking the boat extremely disconcerting. It feels like a duty to rock it on behalf of those who agree but are too polite or afraid for their jobs or reputations to state their actual opinions, to normalize speaking honestly about uncomfortable topics.

                                                                    I mean, I also think it’s on topic to debate the political point made by the list.

                                                                    1. 4

                                                                      I agree with those points. It’s why I’m in the sub-thread. The disagreement is a practical one a few others are noting:

                                                                      “I mean, I also think it’s on topic to debate the political point made by the list.”

                                                                      I agree. I told someone that in private plus said it here in this thread. Whether we want to bring it up, though, should depend on what the goal is. My goal is the site stays focused on interesting, preferably-deep topics with pleasant experience with minimal noise. There’s political debates and flamewars available all over the Internet with the experience that’s typical of Lobsters being a rarity. So, I’d just have not brought it up here.

                                                                      When someone did, the early response was a mix of people saying it’s off-topic/unnecessary (my side) and a group decreeing their political views as undeniable truth or standards for the forum. Aside from no consensus on those views, prior metas on these things showed that even those people believed our standards would be defined by what we spoke for and against with silence itself being a vote for something. So, a few of us with different views on political angle, who still opposed the comment, had to speak to ensure the totality of the community was represented. It’s necessary as long as (a) we do politics here and (b) any group intends to make its politics a standard or enforeable rule. Countering that political maneuvering was all I was doing except for a larger comment where I just answered someone’s question.

                                                                      Well, that plus reinforcing I’m against these political angles being on the site period like I vote in metas. You can easily test my hypothesis/preference. Precondition: A site that’s usually low noise with on-topic, productive comments. Goal: Identify, discuss, and celebrate the achievements of women on a list or in the comments maintaining that precondition. Test: count the comments talking about one or more women versus the gender identity of one (aka political views). It’s easier to visualize what my rule would be like if you collapse Derek’s comment tree. The whole thread meets the precondition and goal. You can also assess those active more on politics than the main topic by adding up who contributed something about an undisputed woman in CompSci and who just talked about the politics. Last I looked, there were more users doing the politics than highlighting women in CompSci as well. Precondition and goal failed on two measurements early on in discussion. There’s a lot of on-topic comments right now, though, so leaned back in good direction.

                                                                      Time and place for everything. I’d rather this stuff stay off Lobsters with me only speaking on it where others force it. It’s not like those interested can’t message each other, set up a gender identity thread on another forum, load up IRC, and so on to discuss it. They’re smart people. There’s many mediums. A few of us here just want one to be better than the rest in quality and focus. That’s all. :) And it arguably was without that comment tree.

                                                                    2. 8

                                                                      So, I avoid bringing this stuff up much as possible.

                                                                      Keep working on this

                                                                      1. 2

                                                                        The dont-rock-the-boat, kinder approach wouldve been for person rejecting the gender claim to just ignore talking about the person he or she didnt think was a woman to focus on others. The thread wouldve stayed on topic. Positive things would be said about about deserving people.

                                                                        Do you believe the most deserving will be talked about most? If you have a population that talks positively about people whether or not they are trans, and you have a smaller population that talks only about non trans people and ignores the trans people, Which people will be talked about most in aggregate? It isn’t kinder to ignore people and their accomplishments.

                                                                        It is also very strange for technology people to reject a technology that changes your gender. What if you had a magic gun and you can be a women for a day, and then be a man the next, why the hell not? We have a technology now where you can be a man or a women or neither or both if you wanted to. Isn’t technology amazing? You tech person you!

                                                            1. 2

                                                              Is kind of sad that this is really only focused on gay men, though :(

                                                              EDIT: emphasis on the men part, not the gay part <3

                                                              1. 1

                                                                Was also hoping for relatable gay content, but this is probably the last place I’ll find it. :)

                                                                1. 1

                                                                  :’(

                                                              1. 4

                                                                A miserable little pile of secrets!

                                                                Sorry…

                                                                1. 4

                                                                  Some interesting techniques described, like branchless security checks and pointer poisoning.

                                                                  1. 7

                                                                    I like reading detailed reviews like this. It seems that GAE is another half-abandoned product with terrible support, like many other Google products.

                                                                    It’s like Google’s approach to products is to avoid talking to customers at all costs both before and after release, under no circumstances dedicate any resources to marketing, then get bored and move on when the product doesn’t take over the world immediately after release. It’s almost a caricature of engineers doing business, except in this case they somehow managed to snag enough revenue from ads to keep on doing this without going bust. It’s a pity because it wastes a lot of resources on the part of customers who get duped into using Google products, only to have a terrible experience.

                                                                    On the other hand, I did have a good experience with Google support once when working with Google Maps, but that was under the aegis of a giant corporate account that was probably costing some hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So for giant corporations, Google products might be OK, and for everybody else AWS or Heroku or something else is likely a better choice. Or perhaps I’m overlooking all the great Google products?

                                                                    1. 2

                                                                      It seems that GAE is another half-abandoned product with terrible support, like many other Google products.

                                                                      I wouldn’t jump to that conclusion off this single review, especially given GAE backs products like Pokemon Go, Khan Academy, and Spotify.

                                                                      1. 1

                                                                        I guess this is in line with my suggestion that things can work well for large customers? Actually, large customers get better treatment everywhere, but it just seems far more extreme with Google.

                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          and Spotify

                                                                          Do you have a reference for this? AFAIK, GAE does not back anything user-facing at Spotify.

                                                                          1. 3

                                                                            No GAE, AFAIK, but plenty of GCP.

                                                                            (I worked there for 7 years and it’s public information.)

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              I stand corrected!

                                                                      1. 4
                                                                        1. 1

                                                                          I have mostly been ignoring the whole WASM thing as I feel it is merely going to make things worse…

                                                                          It’s the old, “Syntax doesn’t really matter, Syntax is just sugar. It’s the semantics of a language that make a language a language”.

                                                                          So it seems to me WASM is just JavaScript uglified by removing all syntactic sugar to lay bare the JavaScript semantics.

                                                                          ie. No matter which language you choose to sugar it with…. the semantics won’t be and can’t be changed.

                                                                          So you’re going to end up with pages like https://clojurescript.org/about/differences (and worse) for every language that compiles to WASM.

                                                                          Am I missing something?

                                                                          1. 2

                                                                            WASM isn’t JS and JS can’t compile to WASM. It’s a lower level that doesn’t even feature a GC. Think more bytecode, than uglified JS.

                                                                            A quick scroll through the instruction set gives you a pretty good idea of what it provides. Compiling to WASM allows for some substantial performance benefits over it’s JS counterpart in initial start time and a number of scenarios in runtime. Realistically, however, most web developers at this point in time will not have any use for it.

                                                                            There is still a bit of work needed to provide WASM with the ability to interact with the DOM directly rather than bridge through JS. How they are going to achieve this, I don’t know. It’s is the main feature I am looking forward to as it will allow VDOM implementations to be optimized further, and incorporated into languages like rust. See asm-dom for example

                                                                            1. 1

                                                                              So it seems to me WASM is just JavaScript uglified by removing all syntactic sugar to lay bare the JavaScript semantics.

                                                                              That’s not the case at all. There is JS interop but it’s unrelated to JS. It doesn’t even have GC, for starters (as mentioned in the post.)

                                                                            1. -5

                                                                              Well, this is yet another big government puff piece.

                                                                              Corporations don’t operate autonomously, of course, and the humans in charge of them are presumably capable of insight, but capitalism doesn’t reward them for using it.

                                                                              I guess by “insight” he means “not being scumbags” or something.

                                                                              Actually, free market capitalism would reward people for not being scumbags. It’s just that now we have governments intervening in everything, making being productive / entrepreneurial increasingly difficult, and shielding their cronies from competition.

                                                                              No wonder bad stuff happens. Comcast can keep on being Comcast, and still roll in money, whereas in a free market it would have gone out of business ages ago, because people would have options, and wouldn’t need to take their shit at all.

                                                                              The proximate cause of every single one of our societal problems is government, one way or another, because all it does is coerce people to benefit the elites at everyone else’s expense.

                                                                              1. 10

                                                                                The proximate cause of every single one of our societal problems is government, one way or another, because all it does is coerce people to benefit the elites at everyone else’s expense.

                                                                                Could you please do me the mental gymnastics to explain how, for example, man made Climate Change is a “big government” caused issue? Or will you go down the usual libertarian route to simply deny it?

                                                                                Markets aren’t ideal, and starting from the assumption that they are, but blaming some “external” cause for it’s own deficiencies, is just intellectually dishonest. Nobody is going to claim that any government are perfect, but for some reason it’s acceptable to hail an economic abstraction as the ultimate solution. People aren’t utility optimising monadic individuals, they make irrational decision based on advertising, miscalculation, subjective preferences, etc. (and all of this would get worse with AI) but all of this doesn’t exist in the eyes of the market fundamentalist. Every decision the market “makes” has to be intrinsically right, just because it was “consentual”, while at the same time ignoring all the factors one didn’t get to choose? That’s hyper relativism if you ask me, and fundamentally contradicts reality, I’m sorry to say that.

                                                                                I don’t mean to insult anyone or start a flame war, but this kind of dogmatic nonsense just really annoys me.

                                                                                1. 0

                                                                                  Could you please do me the mental gymnastics to explain how, for example, man made Climate Change is a “big government” caused issue?

                                                                                  Is climate change a societal problem?

                                                                                  1. 1

                                                                                    The question was about “man manged climate change”. You’re doing it again, btw. The dishonest stuff, since your dogma is entirely in contradiction to reality.

                                                                                    But back to man made climate change - of course it’s a social issue, since the problem is exact that the current social organisation produces industries and practices that are obviously harmful to the ecology of planet earth. How else would one want to do something against man made climate change, but socially? Naturally? Supernaturally? Via “the market”?

                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                      The dishonest stuff, since your dogma is entirely in contradiction to reality.

                                                                                      My “dogma” is essentially just that aggressing against people is immoral and should not be done. It’s not that complicated. The implications are massive though, and not seen at all by the masses.

                                                                                      Governments are all about violating that principle, which is why they shouldn’t exist at all.

                                                                                      It’s of course possible to scam someone in a free market, but a free market itself is essentially just people engaging in unhindered productive activities and unhindered voluntary exchanges.

                                                                                      Here’s a Red Pill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE&t=8

                                                                                2. 6

                                                                                  Actually, free market capitalism would reward people for not being scumbags.

                                                                                  It’s doing it right now. They get away with being scumbags so long as (a) the benefits they provide are better than the competitions by some amount or (b) they cover up the way they’re being scumbags. The cartel effect you see in the market with things such as telecoms, car dealerships, and so on is (a) in action. They’re all greedy, destructive assholes since a lack of better alternatives within your geographic range boosts profits for all. For (b), that would be especially the food industry, drug industry, and much advertising combined with complicit or well-paid media. That covers up a lot of evil bullshit that directly improves the numbers of the companies involved. The mere existence of damaging leaks about big companies’ activities that doesn’t put them out of business supports my point here,

                                                                                  Your big miss here is that both free market and government are reflections of human nature. They’ll both have good and bad depending on whose running the active entities and whose keeping them in check (or not). The “free market” isn’t magic: it’s people telling other people whatever they need to for money to change hands. Bullshit might get even more likely in markets more like that since businesses would come and go fast to point there’s hardly reputation. Even reputation services developing might be paid to be full of shit. Closest to those models are online black markets and competitive places with no I.P. protection such as Shenzhen. It is harder to find quality or safe products in those markets compared to my local market according to people experienced in [successfully] dealing with them. So, your claim doesn’t hold up under either human nature or real-world examples of unregulated markets. They were all extra evil with the physical markets often killing people.

                                                                                  1. 0

                                                                                    It’s doing it right now. [..] The cartel effect you see in the market with things such as telecoms

                                                                                    You do know that telecoms are a state-maintained cartel in every country, don’t you?

                                                                                    They get away with being scumbags so long as (a) the benefits they provide are better than the competitions by some amount or (b) they cover up the way they’re being scumbags.

                                                                                    And what does “being a scumbag” mean there? Is it something you’d actually get away with in a world without governments?

                                                                                    Your big miss here is that both free market and government are reflections of human nature.

                                                                                    No they’re not. Governments are reflections of psychopathy. Actual humans have a vastly different nature.

                                                                                    I’ll stop here.

                                                                                    1. 0

                                                                                      Just a little more..

                                                                                      The “free market” isn’t magic: it’s people telling other people whatever they need to for money to change hands.

                                                                                      That’s one way to put it, if you want to paint it in a negative light. Here’s another: the free market is people making voluntary exchanges, investments and agreements.

                                                                                      For (b), that would be especially the food industry, drug industry, and much advertising combined with complicit or well-paid media. That covers up a lot of evil bullshit that directly improves the numbers of the companies involved.

                                                                                      If you don’t think the bullshit they’re getting away with is enabled by the government, you’re not really familiar with the topic of free markets, or freedom in general.

                                                                                      The “well-paid media” is run by the government too, and as you surely know, essentially just a propaganda outlet. Yes, it does cover up a lot of bullshit. In a free society, it wouldn’t even exist in its current form.

                                                                                      Bullshit might get even more likely in markets more like that since businesses would come and go fast to point there’s hardly reputation

                                                                                      Perhaps you’d only buy from established businesses with a good reputation, then? It’s not like those would be non-existent.

                                                                                      Even reputation services developing might be paid to be full of shit.

                                                                                      Sure, and if they were found out, people could just go beat their owners to a pulp for being scumbags. Without a government to protect scumbags, they’d think really carefully before engaging in scumbaggery.

                                                                                    2. 4

                                                                                      I guess by “insight” he means “not being scumbags” or something.

                                                                                      I think he means what he laid out earlier:

                                                                                      In psychology, the term “insight” is used to describe a recognition of one’s own condition, such as when a person with mental illness is aware of their illness. More broadly, it describes the ability to recognize patterns in one’s own behavior. It’s an example of metacognition, or thinking about one’s own thinking […]

                                                                                      Which I suppose might be a requirement for not being a scumbag.

                                                                                      1. 6

                                                                                        Story of Your Llfe and Other Stories is fantastic; I highly recommend it.

                                                                                        Story of Your Life is the short story on which Arrival was based. I heard the movie did an okay job of adapting it, though I didn’t get a chance to see it. From what I heard they made the story a bit more…fantastical…than the short story.

                                                                                        1. 2

                                                                                          The movie did what Hollywood does when it encounters a science fiction story - it dumbed it down, and contorted key plot points in a way that is less than satisfying to those who’ve read the story.

                                                                                          I honestly don’t know if a straight up screenplay adaptation would actually work though.

                                                                                          1. 6

                                                                                            I try to consider film adaptations as completely separate entities. Maybe that’s why I found Arrival thoroughly enjoyable. My favourite sci-fi movie in quite a while. I recently watched it for the second time, and to my surprise it hit me just as hard, perhaps even harder knowing what was coming.

                                                                                            1. 3

                                                                                              “I try to consider film adaptations as completely separate entities.”

                                                                                              BOOM! You and me both. That’s the secret to not getting mad. Just a whole different universe with some superficial similarities. Plus, I judge books and movies with different standards because the mediums are different.

                                                                                            2. 3

                                                                                              The screenwriter of the movie explains why he made those changes in this podcast: http://www.theqandapodcast.com/2016/11/arrival-q.html

                                                                                              Honestly, I love both the book and the movie for different reasons, totally agree with @alva.

                                                                                              1. 1

                                                                                                Well, I’m glad it happened because it was one of most interesting and original-feeling movies that year. Guess I should try to read the story sometime, too, if it was even better.

                                                                                                1. 3

                                                                                                  I think the movie was great and have read the story, but read it after seeing the movie. It’s not my favorite story in the book. Worth checking out the rest of them too.

                                                                                                  1. 2

                                                                                                    Just to be clear - I really enjoyed the movie myself. I didn’t make it clear enough in my post that I was voicing the opinions of other sci-fi fans around me.

                                                                                                    I look forward to reading the statement from the screenwriter that someone posted to this thread, because there are aspects that really made me wonder why they made the choices they did, but all in all the movie made it possible for the multitudes to get to experience this story which is a win no matter how you slice it.

                                                                                            1. 8

                                                                                              Buzzfeed? Is this truly the path we want to follow?

                                                                                              1. 16

                                                                                                I admit it felt a bit weird to submit it, but I did it anyway because I think Ted Chiang is a good writer and found it a good read, regardless of publisher.

                                                                                                1. 10

                                                                                                  Buzzfeed has some good writers with some well thought out pieces. It’s not all the stereotyped stuff.

                                                                                                  They did an excellent recollection of the AUMF enactment after 9/11 that’s very much worth the read. “60 words and a war without end”.

                                                                                                  1. 15

                                                                                                    What BuzzFeed does nowadays is that the clickbait “what Disney character are you” chaff revenue from ads and such funds serious ventures in journalism. It’s a good idea for a business model; keep the clickbait because it makes money, just keep it away from the actual content.

                                                                                                  2. 19

                                                                                                    At one time you could only read Fahrenheit 451 in Playboy. Look beyond the publisher.

                                                                                                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451#Publication_history

                                                                                                    Edit: Got my facts slightly twisted and I’ve updated this comment for correctness, see https://lobste.rs/s/o5lldd/real_danger_civilization_isn_t_ai_it_s#c_fjiau2

                                                                                                    1. 4

                                                                                                      Buzzfeed is no Playboy.

                                                                                                      1. 2

                                                                                                        I’m not sure if you’re advocating for Buzzfeed or Playboy here :)

                                                                                                      2. 4

                                                                                                        Uhm, Fahrenheit 451 was published as a paperback in October 1953 (an extension of a short story published in 1951). The first issue of Playboy was published in December 1953.

                                                                                                        How did so many people upvote an incorrect comment?

                                                                                                        1. 4

                                                                                                          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451#Publication_history

                                                                                                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzc67YuRQE

                                                                                                          I did get my facts (slightly) twisted, but regardless: Playboy published Fahrenheit 451 shortly after it was available in book form which ultimately supports my original argument: Don’t judge content by its publisher.

                                                                                                      3. 8

                                                                                                        “Judge the content, not the source.”

                                                                                                        The opposite of ad hominem makes a good default. We might make exceptions for sources prone to bullshit or low-value material just to save time. Even so, we must keep in mind that rule for convenience might filter out something they publish that’s more interesting. Like this.

                                                                                                      1. 1

                                                                                                        Heck, I’m kinda disillusioned with everything and willing to give Windows a shot if those battery life claims hold up. Also eager to get my hands on the Vampire V4 for non-work stuff.