Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50101130

Points: 12

# Comments: 0

Set of my Claude alarm bell, and lo-and-behold, Pangram judges this comment to be 100% AI-generated, albeit with limited confidence.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45779826

Points: 5

# Comments: 0

Thanks for the critical feedback.

After feedback on Lobste.rs, I plan on adding a section on conditions and restarts, hopefully sometime later today if time permits. :)

I'd be happy to add some information about Yao as well alongside Common Lisp. It would be helpful for me to have some more details about Yao before writing about it, so I have some follow-up questions below. Please feel free to link me to existing writing; I may be misremembering details, but I don't think the answers to these have been covered somewhere.

I looked at the docs on the master branch as of mid Jan 2025 (could you confirm if these are up-to-date), particularly design.md, and I noticed these points:

> That means that Yao will have unsafe code, like Rust's unsafe. However, unlike Rust, Yao's way of doing unsafe code will be harder to use,

So Yao has a delineation between safe and unsafe code, correct? Does "safe" in Yao have the same (or stronger) set of guarantees as Rust (i.e. no memory safety if all necessary invariants are upheld by unsafe code, and boundary of safe-unsafe code)?

> Yao's memory management will be like C++'s RAII [..]

Does Yao guarantee memory safety in the absence of unsafe blocks, and does the condition+restart system in Yao fall under the safe subset of the language? If so, I'm curious how lifetimes/ownership/regions are represented at runtime (if they are), and how they interact with restarts. Specifically:

1. Are the types of restart functions passed down to functions that are called? 2. If the type information is not passed, and conditions+restarts are part of the safe subset of Yao, then how is resumption logic checked for type safety and lifetime safety? Can resumptions cause run-time type errors and/or memory unsafety, e.g. by escaping a value beyond its intended lifetime?

---

For reading the docs, I used this archive.org link (I saw you're aware of the Gitea instance being down in another comment): https://web.archive.org/web/20250114231213/https://git.yzena...

> So in a laps of 15 years (2010-1025),

The paper was published in 2014, so the period is 2010-2014, not 2010-2025.

> they hand picked 20 bugs from 5 open source filesystem projects (198 total)

The bugs were randomly chosen; "hand picked" would imply that the authors investigated the contents of the bug reports deeply before deciding whether to include them (which would certainly fall under "bad science"). The paper states the following:

> We studied 198 randomly sampled, real world fail- ures reported on five popular distributed data-analytic and storage systems, including HDFS, a distributed file system [27]; Hadoop MapReduce, a distributed data- analytic framework [28]; HBase and Cassandra, two NoSQL distributed databases [2, 3]; and Redis, an in- memory key-value store supporting master/slave replica- tion [54]

So only 1 out of 5 projects is a file system.

> and extrapolated this result. That is not science.

The authors also provide a measure of statistical confidence in the 'Limitations section'.

> (3) Size of our sample set. Modern statistics suggests that a random sample set of size 30 or more is large enough to represent the entire population [57]. More rigorously, under standard assumptions, the Central Limit Theorem predicts a 6.9% margin of error at the 95% confidence level for our 198 random samples. Obviously, one can study more samples to further reduce the margin of error

Do you believe that this is insufficient or that the reasoning in this section is wrong?

I do mention Erlang near the start of the post, around the 360 word mark:

> Joe Armstrong’s talk The Do’s and Don’ts of Error Handling: Armstrong covers the key requirements for handling and recovering from errors in distributed systems, based on his PhD thesis from 2003 (PDF) [sidenote 3].

> [sidenote 3] By this point in time, Armstrong was about 52 years old, and had 10+ years of experience working on Erlang at Ericsson.

> Out of the above, Armstrong’s thesis is probably the most holistic, but it’s grounding in Erlang means that it also does not take into account one of the most widespread forms of static analysis we have today – type systems

> Hi, author here, the title also does say “for systems programming languages” :)

> For continuations to work in a systems programming language, you can probably only allow one-shot delimited continuations. It’s unclear to me as to how one-shot continuations can be integrated into a systems language where you want to ensure careful control over lifetimes. Perhaps you (or someone else here) knows of some research integrating ownership/borrowing with continuations/algebraic effects that I’m unfamiliar with?

> The closest exception to this that I know of is Haskell, which has support for both linear types and a primitive for continuations. However, I haven’t seen anyone integrate the two, and I’ve definitely seen some soundness-related issues in various effect systems libraries in Haskell (which doesn’t inspire confidence), but it’s also possible I missed some developments there as I haven’t written much Haskell in a while.

Technically, yes. :)

But I think this should perhaps be treated as a bug in how we define/design languages, rather than as an immutable truth.

- We already have time-based versioning for languages. - We also have "tiers" of support for different platforms in language implementations (e.g. rarer architectures might have Tier 2 or Tier 3 support where the debugging tooling might not quite work)

One idea would be to introduce "tiers" into a language's definition. A smaller implementation could implement the language at Tier 1 (perhaps this would even be within reach for a university course project). An industrial-strength implementation could implement the language at Tier 3.

(Yes, this would also introduce more complications, such as making sure that the dynamic semantics at different tiers are equivalent. At that point, it becomes a matter of tradeoffs -- does introducing tiers help reduce complexity overall?)

I agree with this to some extent but not fully. I think there are shades of grey to this -- adding language features is a fairly complex and time-consuming process, especially for mainstream languages. Even for properties which many people would like to have, such as "no GC", there are complex tradeoffs (e.g. https://em-tg.github.io/csborrow/)

My position is that language users need to empowered in different ways depending on the requirements. If you look at the Haskell example involving inspection testing/fusion, there are certain guarantees around some type conversions (A -> B, B -> A) being eliminated -- these are somewhat specific to the library at hand. Trying to formalize each and every performance-sensitive library's needs using language features is likely not practical.

Rather, I think it makes sense instead focus on a more bottoms-up approach, where you give somewhat general tools to the language users (doesn't need to expose a full IR), and see what common patterns emerge before deciding whether to "bless" some of them as first-class language features.

> LLVM supports an interesting feature called Optimization Remarks – these remarks track whether an optimization was performed or missed. Clang support recording remarks using -fsave-optimization-record and Rustc supports -Zremark-dir=. There are also some tools (opt-viewer.py, optview2) to help view and understand the output.

> This is not to imply that we should get rid of SQL or get rid of query planning entirely. Rather, more explicit planning would be an additional tool in database user’s toolbelt.

I'm not sure if there was some specific part of the blog post that made you think I'm against automatic query planning altogether; if there was, please share that so that I can tweak the wording to remove that implication.

The preceding paragraph had "and occasionally language features" so I thought it would be understood that I didn't mean it as an optimizer-specific thing, but on re-reading the post, I totally see how the other wording "The knobs to steer the optimizer are limited. Usually, these [...]" implies the wrong thing.

I've changed the wording to be clearer and put the D example into a different bucket.

> In some cases, languages have features which enforce performance-related properties at the semantic checking layer, hence, granting more control that integrates with semantic checks instead of relying on the optimizer: > > - D has first-class support for marking functions as “no GC”.

TaskGroup in the standard library - https://developer.apple.com/documentation/swift/taskgroup

Explore structured concurrency in Swift (WWDC 21) - https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2021/10134/

We recently released a new indexer scip-clang (https://about.sourcegraph.com/blog/announcing-scip-clang), which we've used to successfully index large codebases like Chromium. The indexer relies on a JSON compilation database (same as our older indexer lsif-clang) which is easy to produce from CMake, Bazel, Meson, Make etc.

We've also added support for cross-repo code navigation for C++ recently. (https://about.sourcegraph.com/blog/c-cpp-cross-repo)

Depending on the platforms you need to support, a more heavyweight but more reproducible solution would be to use a fixed LLVM toolchain, say using Bazel.

There are also some community-maintained OSS SCIP indexers. - rust-analyzer: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/-... - scip-zig: https://github.com/zigtools/scip-zig