You deduct the expenses you paid, not the income you hoped to earn.

I wonder if it was 5*64 bits that got mangled in editing. If 256 bits is sufficient for most of their code, I could see there being corner cases that need a few more bits but moving to 512 bits would be overkill.

Maybe it's a typo for 512. I'm not even sure how you would achieve 564 in this context.

It's actually not a typo. Our "real" internal code starts with integer bounds on the inputs (say 2^26) and then computes for each subexpression how many bits are actually needed to exactly represent that. That can even lead to fractional bits (like in "a + b + c"). The generated code then rounds up to the next 64 bit multiple.

Several years ago, I did write that every programmer should attempt to write a browser: https://austinhenley.com/blog/morechallengingprojects.html

:)

Edit: HN's auto-resubmit in action, ignore.

What

So, this link is actually 5 days old, if you hover the "2 hours ago" you'll see the date 5 days ago.

HN second-chance pool shenanigans.

Can you point to any documentation which explains how this works?

Genuinely interested.

Dang gave some explanation here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998308

The two most popular discussions of this fantastic book:

2020 with 777 points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22788738

2024 with 607 points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40950235

A recent post about using Gleam for Advent of Code:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46255991

Wow, my blog was #20 in 2021! Downhill since :)

Aren't there many programming languages not built for humans? They're built for compilers.

Loads! Hardly a novel idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermediate_representation#La...

I'm on it!