Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44155600

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

    ["foo", "bar", "$1"]

    ["baz", "gar", "$2"]

And then a higher level is just iterating the array, and doesn't have to think about the promise. Like a Python generator or Ruby enumerator. I see that Javascript does have async generators, so I guess you'd be using that.

The "sort of" is that you can stream the array contents without literally splatting. The caller doesn't have to reify the whole array, but they could.

EDIT: To this not-really-a-proposal I propose adding a new spread syntax, ["foo", "bar", "...$1"]. Then your progressive JSON layer can just deal with it. That would be awesome.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41932536

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I'm a full-stack developer with 20+ years experience. My specialties are deep Postgres consulting, web development in Rails/Django, and devops with Kubernetes, AWS, Azure, Terraform, Ansible, etc. From time to time I've done projects in Javascript/Typescript (React, Vue, Angular, Node), Java, C#, C, Go, Rust, Elixir, Perl, etc.

I am reliable, easy to work with, quick to turn things around, and a good communicator. I can work solo or on a team, either as lead or a team member. I value client satisfaction as highly as technical excellence.

You can see some of my recent work here:

https://illuminatedcomputing.com/portfolio

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/49/4308/ (Adding SQL:2011 application-time to Postgres)

https://commitfest.postgresql.org/31/2112/ (Adding multiranges to Postgres)

https://github.com/pjungwir/aggs_for_arrays

https://github.com/pjungwir/aggs_for_vecs

https://github.com/pjungwir/active_model_serializers_pg

If you'd like to work together, I'd be happy to discuss your project!: pj@illuminatedcomputing.com

I noticed a couple details that seem wrong:

- You are passing `context` to `log_then_get` and `get`, but you never use it. Perhaps that is left over from a previous version of the post?

- In the fiber example you do this inside each fiber:

    responses << log_then_get(URI(url), Fiber.current)

    responses << get_http_fiber(...)

- Doesn't this leave `responses` with 8 elements instead of 4?

- What does `Fiber.schedule` return anyway? At best it can only be something like a promise, right? It can't be the result of the block. I don't see the answer in the docs: https://ruby-doc.org/3.3.4/Fiber.html#method-c-schedule

- When each fiber internally appends to `responses`, it is asynchronous, so are there concurrency problems? Array is not thread-safe I believe. So with fibers is this safe? If so, how/why? (I assume the answer is "because we are using a single-threaded scheduler", but that would be interesting to put in the post.)

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40963905

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

But there are still things happening, e.g.:

- pdxpug (Postgres)

- Database Reading Group (DBRG) at PSU

- pdx.rb

- pdxruby Slack channel

- pdxstartups Slack channel

- Portland Papers We Love

- Portland Linux Users Group

- Linux Kernel meetup

- Rose City Techies

That's from just a little bit of research. But I miss when Calagator was full of cool stuff. What happened there I wonder?

I've tried hosting things in my home/back yard before. One was just to come hack on your projects together. Another was to work on open source contributions. I'd be up for trying something like that again. Something about systems/databases would be right up my alley. Maybe a reading group. If anyone sees this and is interested, send me an email.

When I read Turing's paper some years ago, this really confused me. The best sense I could make was that "circle-free" means "halts". But in popular explanations, writers often equate "halts" with "gives a result" and "doesn't halt" with "has a bug", i.e. an infinite loop. And Turing seems to connote just the opposite. The point is to print a real number, so if the program stops printing digits, something went wrong. (I guess many numbers would end in 0s forever.) From today's paper:

> a program is circular, when it produces only finitely many digits of the output digit sequence, and circle-free, when it has succeeded in giving us an infinite digit sequence for the output real number.

But I could never really believe my interpretation. It was just the best I could come up with, as an amateur reading the paper alone for fun. Later I read Petzold's book, and I'm not sure that really solved the trouble for me either.

I've only read a few pages so far, but I'm gathering it's not as simple as I wanted: "circle-free" is not merely equivalent to "halts" after all. I'm looking forward to seeing their more nuanced take.

EDIT: Btw, this reminds me of the best riddle I've ever invented myself. Q: What do you call a fully autonomous self-driving car that can operate with as much understanding as a person? A: N Gheavat Znpuvar. (I didn't say it was a good riddle.)

Hundreds, huh? Is this a typo? It makes me wonder if the whole comment is facetious. Or do C++ programmers just have very low expectations for build time?

I've always thought companies offer those for ulterior motives, e.g. maybe they get a fee for giving the protection service future customers. Do others use them? Maybe I've been wrong here.