Sure they do. I live in london. Go to shepherd's bush market[0] and you can find cooking bananas like plantain, bluggo and matoke (my fave), and for desert bananas you can find fig/monkey bananas, red bananas and I think I've seen more. Go somewhere caribbean oriented and you'll have a better chance. Plus you'll find other unusual stuff too.
[0] worth it just for being the polar opposite of a sterile, well ordered, monoculture of a supermarket. It's fab.
(Edit: I didn't read your comment properly so my reply isn't so relevant)
If it helps any I have ~2500 tabs open in palemoon (well overdue for an afternoon of tab culling but anyway) and it's ~1.5GB. I never allow JS. So my guess is it's either JS directly, or perhaps JS pulling in extra resources when allowed to run.
I see what you're saying, but - and I mean this constructively - you can take a rather roundabout way of saying it which fogs your meaning.
Anyway...
> So when a particular society legislates a law, you don't necessarily have to take it as if that particular society has settled a universal moral question
Point taken, but laws can be plain immoral, even evil. Laws should be as moral as possible. Laws without a moral backing would seem to be meaningless.
But lets put that aside, let's take your intended point that laws are an attempt to formalise morality, and lets also assume morality is what we'd call moral (not oppressing women/minorities/certain religions/etc). You say
> but you cannot equivocate on a law
but you damn well can! In the UK the definition of theft involves intent. From wiki "[...] if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it"
It's all about intent. It's the crux of it IIRC (and I did a short course in law). A lot of law is about intent. I hit a person in the face. Deliberate? I get spanked. Genuine unavoidable accident? I get let off. Intent is central. It is very equivocable.
In our case, which of 8chan's members are in it for pure lulz, and which because they really want to start a race war. Hard to tell intent.
Still sounds like the world is a cleaner place without them lot.
> ... universal moral rulings, think of them as organizational rules
Sure. Slavery was moral, or if I disagree with it, I'll accept it as an organisational rule instead. Ditto apartheid, ditto the way many mid-eastern countries treat women.
I expect so. It's reasonable[0] to believe there are policement and judges who will arrest and sentence you for drug use, thus enforcing the law, while not believing the law is right.
[0] I know there are such policemen, I extrapolate to expect there are likeminded judges too.
which is why I carefully used the word Naive, however I had little time to expand on it so I can't blame anyone for overlooking that.
> If you're only borrowing the value...
Then you give examples of manually offloading memory management to the programmer. It should be done, and I believe the book I reference covers it (can't find it now, sorry), but definitely not by the programmer else it's not automatic GC.
> ARC is usually atomic reference counting.
That won't make any necessary inter-core or inter-socket coherency traffic disappear.
> Any heap allocations [...] is likely to cause memory fragmentation.
My memory was that refcounting was particularly bad but feel free to disregard that as I can't justify it. I may well be wrong.
> This is a "can submarines swim" type of question and is completely uninteresting (imo).
However if he says "Rust gets us 80% of the way there" as you point out then he is obliged, IMO, to point out explicitly the 20% where it fails or we can't even begin to discuss it.
> but it was a false dichotomy: We can have memory safety without garbage collection.
but then say
> Automatic reference counting
(ARC henceforth). Naive ARC is AFAIK very expensive as it causes a lot of updates at each pointer 'take' even if it's a read only (chasing pointers), trashing caches. Poss. even worse if multithreading is used as a memory barrier may have to be issued. Also it does not collect cycles. Also I've read it causes memory fragmentation (take that with a pinch of salt, that's from my memory!).
ARC has some advantages but it has some real costs.
Also and even more, if ARC is what you think it is, how is it not an implementation of GC?
> Perl5 uses plain old reference counting, executes the AST directly, and still outperforms python for data and IO[2]!
Ok... 1) outperforming python is not a high bar. 2) IO is usually handed off to the underlying OS so talking about IO performance is probably misleading. 3) Python now has a fallback non-ARC GC to pick up cycles. 4) GC in python is IIRC an implementation detail, not language-mandated. Finally, if it outperforms it, please provide a reference.
I'll check out linear lisp if I can find the time.
You say a lot of things without justification: "IMO garbage collection is the epitome of sunk cost fallacy. Thirty years of good research thrown at a bad idea." "Garbage collection is just plain bad." And more.
> The reality is we as developers choose not to give languages enough context to accurately infer the lifetime of objects.
Possibly because it's hard and until compilers + maths developed enough, it wasn't possible. Maybe. I dunno, but there's probably a reason Rust didn't appear in the 1970s. They're probably harder to use than conventional langs, judging by what I read about Rust's borrow checker (dunno, Rust's on my todo list so no actual experience).
> we have a giant for loop that iterates over all of memory over and over and over to guess when we're done with things
This is from memory so I may be wrong, but a conservative GC will iterate over the whole memory but if you're using one of those you've probably got other problems because yes, conservative GCs do 'guess'. (Edit: and when it guesses wrongly it can fail to free, causing leaks. And some optimisations that temporarily make pointer values 'disappear' can cause premature frees of the object pointed to. I believe an example of the latter is using branch-free XOR on pointers to swap them. 'proper').
Most modern systems will use something more sophisticated and known-correct such as tracing and will trace just the live stuff. Mark-compact for sure only touches live data which makes it efficient for functional langs (for some definition of 'efficient', I have questions).
I'd recommend reading a book ('The Garbage Collection Handbook: The Art of Automatic Memory Management' 2nd edition, Richard Jones et al) before abusing GC. I actually agree with some of what you're saying but you need to say why.
> It wastes time, it wastes space, it wastes energy.
I quite possibly agree! (see a recent previous post where I call lack of optimisation in scala 'immoral') But if you just give your opinion without some solid backup I can't endorse you. Please read the GC book, it really is very good indeed. The author's a nice guy too, met him years ago.
[0] worth it just for being the polar opposite of a sterile, well ordered, monoculture of a supermarket. It's fab.
(Edit: I didn't read your comment properly so my reply isn't so relevant)