gollark

I think they're in my nonurgent queue, and thus will be gotten round to by about 2035, assuming such a year exists.

Suddenly a grinding noise sounded from behind her: the megazord had finished assembling itself from the parts her team had brought, and was rapidly running through its startup procedures.

As Big Brother was a ghast at this point, this was not particularly clear to anyone nearby.

I vaguely remember something about language models with a diffusion objective but I don't know much about them. Certainly work on using language models to edit text has been done.

Fortunately, her team's defensive cordon outside the building had held, and she didn't need to call in an orbital laser strike yet.

Your application has been applied using Applicative.

We apologize for the delay. Your application is being processed processively. Expect a response in 6 to 8 weeks.

It's inconvenient and inelegant to have to target implementations.

Actually, I'm immune to propaganda, but you are not. GTech™ apiologizes for the inconvenience.

This is not true. We anticipate that osmarksinternalauth™ will actually consume at least 32% of computer systems by then as they are integrated into osmarks.net.

Human memory is notoriously unreliable. Did you try asking the mind spiders?

Making Minecraft clones/replacements. There are rather a lot.

I feel like this has been tried a lot and not worked.

Applications are processed at random using memetics, although actually reminding us of them will probably work.

REAL programmers just make computers do all division tasks.

You should probably not use it for anything but approved microwave uses. They are unsafe.

Maybe I could set up some automation to do a page a day and we could discuss it (although getting people to do that would be nontrivial).

But I'm enjoying the Apioforum reading experience! I guess I could just post modern translations myself in segments.

While I'm theoretically interested in Old English epic poetry slightly, I can only guess at what most of this means. Please offer a modern English translation or you won't have.

Your incautious actions have doomed us all. It is far too late now.

Implode immediately.

Terse and still somewhat comprehensible, I mean, sorry. While it might technically be possible to implement things like generics with weird workarounds, it seems like nobody actually does this, so I cannot, say, conveniently import a generic hashtable like I can in Rust and use it on anything I want. There are other things like lack of ADTs which are problematic.

Regardless, I don't think C is actually "powerful" in any relevant sense. It lets you mess with memory in low-level ways, but this isn't something most programs actually need as much as end up doing as an implementation detail and/or horrible security problem. It doesn't let you define many nice abstractions or write code in general and terse ways.

There are build tools which can write the WASM bindings for you.

I agree that all programming languages are vaguely terrible in some way, but my preferences disagree with all your examples. C is irritatingly low-level, nonexpressive and unsafe, Perl is eldritch, and you don't even need to use JS on the web nowadays.

rustc is, as far as I know, quite tightly tied to cargo. They add features to it to make cargo work correctly. I don't really care about this because it's a very nice build tool.

Rust takes power away from the programmer because it makes it completely impossible to do things that people often very well have a damn good reason for doing, forcing developers to make bloated, slow programs, all done in a crazed pursuit of "safety"

The developers did actually recognize that this could be an issue, hence "unsafe blocks". You're just not really meant to use them all the time, and it isolates the unsafety to those regions.

This isn't accidental—it's explicitly stated as its goal. It's a bit like governments banning books because "think of the children!!!11!!!" except nowhere near as big of a deal.

I do not think it's particularly valid to compare equate government "safety" to programming language "safety", and not just because of unsafe blocks. It is generally easier to opt out of writing in a particular programming language than it is to opt out of a government doing a thing.

In addition, it locks programmers and users into a specific ecosystem, which people get all pissy about when proprietary-software companies do it, yet when Rust does it it's for some reason seen as okay despite being just as much of a hostile tactic.

There are some Rust libraries which export C-usable interfaces, most notably regex, which I believe is actually being trialled as a replacement for Python's re module.

Furthermore, the official community surrounding Rust uses an immoral code of law that allows for infinite punishment to be given to people, allows punishment to be given without a fair trial, and allows punishment for actions committed outside of the jurisdiction of the Rust community.

I mean, I haven't looked at this, but I think most communities informally work this way anyway.

You could have power and control over Minoteaur.