Nah West Taiwan is the western half of Taiwan. It’s an island, not a state, just as Denmark is not Jutland, or Spain, or Portugal (fight!) Iberia.

Taiwan is the island, also known as Formosa, and it is ruled by the Republic of China. Separately, but still part of that state, there’s the autonomous mainland provinces, calling themselves the People’s Republic of China, a rebel faction which somehow steadfastly refuses to declare independence.

When you have a paper that’s pretty much a succession of “Lemma:” “Proof:” “Theorem:” and “Proof:” and no benchmark chart then yes it’s a theoretical one.

The PC industry has been trying to get rid of those 3.3V and 5V rails for over a decade now, trying to get everyone on board with 12V only. The only hold-out in a modern PC should be SATA, at 5V, the mainboard already doesn’t care and GPUs definitely don’t. Also no -12V any more. Any year now, not that SATA will die that quickly but the mainboard knows how many SATA connectors it has and can provide sufficient 5V to power your disks.

Definitely above the threshold of immortality.

China is calling the state capitalism they have there “Socialism with Chinese characteristics”. Hence “with Dessalines characteristics”.

Socialism with Dessaline characteristics is, to the best of my knowledge, the ideology of lemmygrad. You know, abolish slavery and then run plantations with forced labour is a very tankie thing to do. I’m sure both Dessalines, the emperor and the lemmy dev one, can explain to you how those two are completely different things.

Lemmygrad and tankies in general have military discipline while hexbear is a vibes-based mob. Authoritarians vs. virtue signallers, one taking over the other would mean popcorn for years.

Eh ECS is basically all about making SELECT ... FROM bar, baz WHERE bar.id == baz.id, joins on primary keys, as fast as possible and use it as often as possible. Games are real-time databases with gaudy user interfaces so it stands to reason that posgresql is a game with a bland user interface.

So… who’s outbidding them? Someone from tankiejerk? Or are their being taken over by lemmygrad, to be introduced to Socialism with Dessaline characteristics?

Oh no it’s definitely a theoretical paper. Even if the theory is fully formalised and thus executable it still wouldn’t give much insight on how it’d perform in the real world because theorem provers aren’t the most performant programming languages.

And, FWIW, CS theorists don’t really care about running programs same as theoretical physicists don’t care much about banging rocks together, in both cases making things work in the real world is up to engineers.

18/f/cali

And yet all that pales in comparison to using react (or whatever framework) over vanilla js. Enter McMaster-Carr.

Using bencode over json would probably speed up the web more. Not to mention good ole ASN.1 (well, at least some binary schemes for ASN.1). The web is completely cooked when it comes to efficiency.

I blame Bavaria. If Germany had multiple price zones like other European countries instead of one giant one prices would plummet here in the north, while they’d explode in Bavaria. The state that does not want wind power, does want nuclear power, but already knows ahead of time that its geology (with lots of mountains and granite) is unsuitable for nuclear waste storage. Meanwhile, north German wind power and Scandinavian hydro dams complement each other perfectly. The Bavarians could do the same with the Austrians, they just don’t. They want to eat cake and have it, too.

After reading through the abstract the article is pop sci bunk: They developed a method to save additional space with constant-time overhead.

Which is certainly novel and nice and all kinds of things but it’s just a tool in the toolbox, making things more optimal in theory says little about things being faster in practice because the theoretical cost models never match what real-world machines are actually doing. In algorithm classes we learn to analyse sorting algorithms by number of comparisons, and indeed the minimum necessary is O(n log n), in the real world, it’s numbers of cache invalidation that matters: CPUs can compare numbers basically instantly, getting the stuff you want to compare from memory to the CPU is where time is spent. It can very well be faster to make more comparisons if it means you get fewer, or more regular (so that the CPU can predict and pre-fetch), data transfers.

Consulting my crystal ball, I see this trickling down into at least the minds of people who develop the usual KV stores, database engineers, etc, maybe it’ll help maybe it won’t those things are already incredibly optimized. Never trust a data structure optimisation you didn’t benchmark. Never trust any optimisation you didn’t benchmark, actually. Do your benchmarks, you’re not smarter than reality. In case it does help, it’s going to trickle down into standard implementations of data structures languages ship with.

EDIT: I was looking an this paper, not this. It’s actually disproving a conjecture of Yao, who has a Turing prize, certainly a nice feather to have in your cap. It’s also way more into the theoretical weeds than I’m comfortable with. This may have applications, or this may go along the lines of the Karatsuba algorithm: Faster only if your data is astronomically large, for (most) real-world applications the constant overhead out-weighs the asymptotic speedup.

There’s plenty of schemes that aren’t fully standards-compliant but I don’t think leaving out eval is common – it’s easy to implement and nothing about the standard says that it needs to run code fast.

Just wanted to point out that eval is the real static vs dynamic boundary. As to evil, sure, you shouldn’t run just any code you find without having a sandbox in place, C’s way to do the same thing is to call cc followed by dlopen, that’s way scarier, which is why people just link in lua or something instead. I guess in <currentyear> you should probably include a wasm runtime instead of using dlopen.

Fork. Setting up a whole new project infrastructure, getting fellow developers on board with your putsch and everything can be a PITA but all those are natural hurdles, due to how the licensing works the BDFL has no way to stop you.

As such, as a BDFL you rule by the grace of authority of the bootmaker. If you don’t make sense, if you aren’t respected, sooner than later the community is going to leave you behind.

Rust has affine types and gets close to linear when you include #[must_use] (you can still let _ = foo but at least it won’t be an accident, also, drop code isn’t guaranteed to run and there’s good reasons for that), refinement types there’s a library for that. GADTs… I mean sure trait magic can get annoying and coming from Haskell you’d want to do more in the type system but in the end the idiomatic rust way to do many of those things is with macros. Which, unlike Haskell, Rust actually is really good at. Really good. Tack refinement types onto the language kind of good.

Proving tools, honestly, there’s only one piece of actually proven software (SeL4) and the only language it’s really written in is Coq. Which Rust will never, ever, compete with on its home turf.

Any language containing eval in its spec cannot be (fully) compiled ahead of time, you’ll need interpretation or JIT.

Also last I checked (it’s been a while) Racket compiles to bitcode and then links in a bitcode interpreter. There’s static lisp/scheme compilers but when they come across an eval, they’re going to bail and compile in a JIT compiler or interpreter to deal with that stuff.