https://github.com/brandonbloom/asyncx

[1]: http://talks.golang.org/2012/concurrency.slide#1

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form

[2]: http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/tags/Eduasync/defa...

[3]: http://msmvps.com/blogs/jon_skeet/archive/2011/05/20/eduasyn...

I should also mention a key difference between channels and Rx/Observables: The fundamental operations for observable sequences are subscribe & unsubscribe. The fundamental operations for channels are put and take. In the push sequence model, the consumer must give a pointer to itself to the publisher, which couples the two processes and introduces resource management burdon (ie IDisposable).

You can think of a pipeline from A to B in the following ways:

Sequences: B pulls from A

Observables: A pushes to B

Channels: Some process pulls from A and pushes to B

That extra process enables some critical decoupling!

#1 is about planning for extensibility. Just look at the hackery with JS where lonely, otherwise ignored, strings are used for things like "use strict" and "use asm". Or where Microsoft added "conditional comments", which quite frankly, was essential to the development of Outlook Web Access, which basically gave us Ajax. Or all the absurd vendor prefixes on CSS tag names. Or one of 100 other little hacks that browser vendors have invented to try to innovate past the standard. Pushing pass the standard, by the way, is the only way forward. We've learned that lesson by now, so we should plan for extensibility.

There are three issues:

1) Language pluggable?

2) Spec-ed shader languages

3) Mandatory languages

The proposal was:

1) No

2 & 3) GL SL ES

Microsoft proposed:

1) Yes

2) GL SL ES

3) None

The perfectly reasonable compromise would have been:

1) Yes

2 & 3) GL SL ES

Thanks!

> he states 5, I bet it is closer to 20

I think it varies greatly with many factors, but agree that it's probably closer to 20. I'm just trying to avoid selling silver bullets.

> Has anyone ever measured a Reading Comprehension score for languages?

While language is a huuuge component of that constant factor, there are certainly other components. For example, if you want to write a sudoku solver, you should start by writing a backtracking constraint solver and then implement the constraint solver on top of it. You'll write less code than trying to solve sudoku directly, but that code will certainly be slower to read. This applies within a language just as much as it does across languages.

Are you concerned about being wasteful with disk space? Or is there some other concern here? Some security issue perhaps?

But they don't. And you're not going to be able to make them. And even if you did, people would disagree about what constitutes compatibility, stability, and engineering disciplin. One man's "breaking change" is another man's "that was an implementation detail". It's not possible to get this right, since first you need to define "right". That's why versioning is folly.

However, I think that there are basically three categories of application data

1) Documents -- These should never be deleted and are not invisible 2) Settings & other small data not worth deleting, probably nice to keep around in case you ever re-install. Most stuff. 3) Large semi-temporary files, like samples and other downloaded add ons that are optional parts of the application

I think OSX handles 1 & 2 well, but you're right, it needs a way to handle #3 too. However, I think that #2 is a much better default than #3.

I agree completely, but I'd like to take your idea further in a direction you likely didn't intend.

The fundamental observation of distributed version control systems, in my opinion, is: Every commit is essentially a fork.

When you combine these two ideas: 1) fork->rename and 2) change==fork, with the 3) identities & values from FP/Clojure/etc, you realize that version numbers are complete folly.

Coincidentally, I just wrote about this with respect to SemVer: http://www.brandonbloom.name/blog/2013/06/19/semver/

In short, if you have awesomelib and make an incompatible version, you can call it awesomelib2. Or you could call it veryawesomelib or whatever else you want. If you give up on the silly idea of being able to compare version numbers, then versioning and naming become equivalent.

Application uninstalls are as trivial as dragging the application to the trash bin. No, this will not eliminate the application's data from ~/Library, etc, but 98% of the time you don't want that anyway. If you know what you're doing, it's usually a quick `rm -rf ~/Library/...` and you're done. Some poorly behaved apps stick stuff in other places or otherwise muck with your system, but now with the app store, that's no longer an issue.

And, if you're absolutely anal about deleting every single trace of an app, there are tools that automate the process. For example: http://www.appzapper.com/ -- But really, it's probably a waste of your time unless you had a badly behaved app go rouge. In my many years of Mac ownership, I've installed and uninstalled hundreds of apps and the only time I ever had to bang my head against the wall was when I used to use MacPorts and a Postgres install went haywire because of the same sort of packaging nonsense that the article is talking about.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5908215

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Of course, given that the early drafts were written by Wolfram himself, you'll have to ignore absurd statements like this one: "Long viewed as an important theoretical idea, functional programming finally became truly convenient and practical with the introduction of Mathematica's symbolic language." [2]

See also: Pure [3]

[1] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/tutorial/CoreLangua...

[2] http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/guide/FunctionalPro...

[3] http://purelang.bitbucket.org/

2-3 finger trees are immutable/persistent and support access to both ends in amortized constant time and logarithmic concatenation and splitting.

The complicating factor being that for flyweight values, like characters, the interior nodes of the tree would be prohibitive for one leaf per character. Surely there must be a variant of 2-3 finger trees that addresses this.

That's why I mentioned truth tables. Being able to quickly perform symbolic simplifications is awesome. If nothing else, learn how to do that!