You're naming and lambasting multiple different technologies and their communities without justifying why they are so bad. Few people use C without knowing about the threat of buffer overflows or invalid pointer dereferences, and C can be used productively in spite of these obvious flaws. Instead of trying to drive people away from what they do, if you seek understanding then you should allow others to justify their reasons. If you only test your understanding against your understanding, you're not making an assessment at all. You can find and talk to many smart people here and elsewhere, if you so desire.
Not to make a point of it either way, but judging a book by its cover can be useful if the credibility of the book's content alone is difficult to evaluate. That's why people care about degrees and other qualifications.
There are plenty of other ways. Book reviews for example. If the cover is the only way than so be it, but this is rarely case. Additionally the cover of a book, like capitalization is one of the most inaccurate metrics to judge a book by.
I was going to disagree, along the lines of the people bringing up Bret Victor or other modes of communication and learning, but I have long accepted that the written word has been one of the largest boons for learning in human history, so I guess I agree. Still, it'll be an interesting and worthwhile challenge to make a better medium with modern technology.
I like to be flexible with policies, so while I think "capabilities" should be the core model, using ACL mechanisms under the hood is valid. If the capability mechanism is very minimal, people can build mechanisms and policies on top that are specialized for different use cases. It's not about "capabilities vs. ACLs"; it's "use the right tool for the job".
So while resource revocation in general is a hard problem, anyone can come up and implement their clever scheme in my imagined world.
Lifetimes and types are different, but the part where they are generic is the same. I think of it as "who controls/decides the value of this parameter". It's a crucial part of understanding lifetimes, not just a misconception.
Exactly, so it seems like a category error to say (as the article does) “generics and lifetimes are tightly intertwined in Rust”. I mean, would you say “generics and types are tightly intertwined in Rust”? If anything, types and lifetimes are intertwined — by generics!
Rust tutorials introduce lifetimes and stick them into the brackets, but I don’t remember one that explains genericity in a general way first, then applies it to both types and lifetimes. Lifetimes come across as a special thing that happens to be in the same brackets. (Or maybe that was just me!)
I believe the model in the compiler isn’t quite so pure in reality (IIRC, struct lifetimes can affect type unification), but most of the time this is the easiest way to understand it.
> The problem is that no-one can easily understand how their brain works compared to other people. People on both sides don't talk about it enough or openly enough. If you look at the science it quickly descends in to endless confusing/impenetrable psychiatric terminology.
It's not just how the "science" is conducted, or limited to a fixed number of sides. Everyone doesn't quite know what anyone else experiences. We all just throw around symbols, hoping someone gets what we mean by what we say, and assuming that we know what others mean by what they say. The meat of what we know and experience never gets transmitted faithfully to anyone.
To be certain, many people do have conditions that, say, I will never have. But that doesn't make me "normal" or those people "abnormal". The definition of a disorder by showing harm to living one's life is a good start, but fraught with the complexity of analyzing things in an implicit social context. If it seems that someone has a problem, I'll consider it a problem, not only if it seems sufficiently and officially abnormal.
At the same time, it's arguable that certain observations such as "commercialization and commoditization have become stronger" are true. We're certainly living in an era where a lot can change in a few decades.
>living in an era where a lot can change in a few decades
So were people in 1910. You could say the printing press set up the following industrial revolution and things have been accelerating ever since. People talk that in the future there will be a technological singularity that things will go so fast people won't be able to keep up, but really in many ways we've been in it for a while already and it's still accelerating.
My grandfather rode to school on a horse, saw the last of the nomadic native peoples traveling Iowa, watched polio ruin lives and bring fear, then watched science conquer polio. Watched humans conquer the sky and land on the moon, fought mechanised island warfare as a sent in Marine in the pacific on the side of half the world fighting against the other half of the world. Personally saw the damage of nuclear war in occupied Japan, then watched the world build a 15 minute system for mutually assured nuclear destruction (MAD). Went from mail to shared rural 'party' phone lines, and ended his life with a world connected with a global knowledge network to every home and free video calls to anywhere in the world. He went from canned zucchini/beats in the winter to access to whatever fresh produce (and more importantly ice cream) he wanted all year long.
Unless we make some major breakthroughs, I don't think there will ever be another generation of change like that one.
I won't say that Kubernetes is great at scheduling, access control, and others, but mainstream OSes aren't superb either. General-purpose OSes are decent for many disparate groups of users but rarely satisfy any one.
Yeah, I'm honestly quite confused about the whole situation. There probably was some toxicity behind-the-scenes (maybe after the initial thread), but from who, I don't know. I think maybe the thread seemed polarized in everyone's minds and so it became so in their actions.
reply