Mond_

966 karmajoined 2 tahun yang lalu

https://herecomesthemoon.net/

comments

16 hari yang laludiscuss

It's not about having to remember them, it's that you shouldn't waste these short single symbols on operations that are only rarely used.

This stuff (especially the ternary) are a step backwards. There is just no reason to waste | on a bitwise or that gets used at 1% of the frequency of the standard or. In the future you might have a better use for it (pipeline syntax, sum or union types come to mind in other languages).

I dislike basically everything about these syntax extensions.

19 hari yang laludiscuss

> Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy less unhappiness

> Money can very much buy happiness. Most of the things that make you unhappy can be remedied with money

Was it too hard to read beyond the first comma?

22 hari yang laludiscuss

It's their own blog and they can do whatever they feel like to break up the flow. I think it's quite charming tbh

bulan laludiscuss

Sort specifically is kind of a weird example, but C++ is full of awful naming.

std::map (which is not a hash map, which is what most people would expect), std::move (which doesn't move), std::vector (which is not a vector), and std::vector<bool> (which is not even a std::vector).

bulan laludiscuss

Yes, with the trade-off of essentially requiring exceptions, which are also banned in some codebases.

bulan laludiscuss

Is it really, though, or is it just in comparison to C++?

Tbh I never expected that experiment to go anywhere. I guess that leaves Carbon (and large scale efforts to rewrite C++ in Rust).

bulan laludiscuss

May I ask how far you got? It's not a good representation of industrial engineering, for sure, but I do like the actual logistics management and "how do I deal with my technical debt" later in the game. I think most of this only really gets interesting once you use trains everywhere and build everything with bots.

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

It isn't anymore, though, that's kind of the whole point of the article.

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

Strategic vision.

The common sentiment is that you didn't really want to do that. You expect higher returns from only having a single base model.

2 bulan yang laludiscuss

How about just panic? If a wrap happens and you don't expect it, it's almost always a severe bug.

Then, dedicated APIs for wrapping behavior where you expect it to happen.

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

Not OP, but I've had the same conclusion. It's a bit cheeky to call it a puzzle game, but I don't think it's strictly wrong.

Imo it's better to approach Demon's Souls as an exploration puzzle game with RPG stuff and combat, not as an action RPG (such as Dark Souls 3).

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

No shade thrown, but I always preferred my game with some amount of story or artistic ambition beyond mere puzzling.

I'd take Void Stranger or probably even Deadly Rooms of Death: The Second Sky over Stephen's Sausage Roll any day, I imagine.

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

I don't think that's what that word means.

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

really?

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

So, where can I buy a handful for personal use?

3 bulan yang laludiscuss

I think that a "minimal viable baseline" type implementation should not break the ODR.

In Rust these types of proposals are common, in C++ less so. The incredibly tedious release process encourages everyone to put in just as much complexity as they can safely get away with.

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

Well, I've been unable to follow you as well, then. Obviously if they'd used a different type of syntax (e.g. using # for annotations), those would also be compatible with the language spec, and other implementations would still be just as capable of ignoring all unknown annotations.

(Though for the record, talking about alternative implementations when discussing Go is kind of a funny joke.)

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

It's an overloaded comment. I am personally quite fine with it, I don't think it's bad. but it is an overloaded comment.

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

This is begging the question. Yes, but why did they do that over dedicated syntax?

(My personal theory is that early go had a somewhat misguided idea of simplicity, and preferred overloading existing concepts with special cases over introducing new keywords. Capitalization for visibility is another example of that.)

4 bulan yang laludiscuss

This is such a silly response when "You've gotten better at using them and know how to work around their flaws now." is right there and seems a lot more plausible.