What I wish more languages did was what the guile optimizer does. There is a source->source optimizer which does inlining, DCE, CSE and partial evaluation.
That is very handy, especially when writing macros. I only have to look at assembly when I want to know about optimizations that are not visible in the source->source optimizer.
If I ever want to know if something is reified (which I never do) I can always look at the ASM.
I'm not sure if this will surface as an "enabled by default" feature in .NET 11 - indeed there may not be a final decision on that yet. But it is an active area of work that will arrive sooner or later.
`AsyncMethodBuilder` is a way to declare async methods that return your own task types. AFAIK it is not supported with the current runtime async, and maybe never will be - it's quite hard to support, I believe.
Taking bike.jpg and bike-repackaged.jxl in that demo, on my Pixel 10 Pro in Firefox Nightly, the size and decoding times are:
bike.jpg - 147 kB - 10ms
bike-repackaged.jxl - 126 kB - 33ms
So, I save 21 kB, but pay 23ms.
That extra 21 kB isn't part of a new request, so when it comes to download performance, we're talking about an active response. At 3g speeds, in 23 ms you can download somewhere between 20-118 kB, so at best, it evens out.
If it's a lower end device, the decode delta increases. If it's a faster connection, the 21 kB saving matters less. If the image was cached, then I'm just paying the decode overhead.
People really, really like to try to save up on the matches, so to speak. Sometimes literally: there was a short period of time during Khrushchev's rule in the USSR when the natural gas was made free for the populace. Well, the matches still cost money (1 kopeck for a box of 50 matches), so lots of people would just not turn the stove off, instead always having it burning the smallest possible flame when not in use.
All that to say, "I save 21 kB, but pay 23ms"? You'll save more if you stop sending your favourite web font over with your page and use the system fonts, and trim down your site's JS.
You are probably the guy to ask. I have always found dns over TLS to be the fastest, but with the quic versions making an entrance, maybe things have changed. Which is the one that gives me the fastest replies?
We actually quite like DOQ and DOH3, both of which use QUIC.
All modern Apple systems use QUIC. For instance if given 9.9.9.9 via DHCP they will automatically upgrade to encryption via DDR, then then upgrade to DOH3 with no intervention by the end user. We find that encryption load is lower with QUIC-based transports, but we need to really get a formal research paper together on that "in our spare time."
Faster? Probably, but is it measurably "better" remains a question for others to answer. Due to parallelism in most query sets, minor wins with DNS latency matter less than you might think.
Not OP but I don’t think DoQ is very interesting. DoH is nice because it blends in with HTTPS. Both do the protocol level things to avoid connection handshakes. The HTTP overhead isn’t that much really.
DoT is more complex than you’d imagine because it has to try hard to implement its own solutions to avoid handshakes.
In some ways I feel that caring a lot about fonts is on the opposite side of the spectrum to whatever it is making a population feel their lives have more meaning during wartime or crisis.
As a visual designer, sure, it is you job. As a computer user whose ultimate goal of using a computer is something else... I am kind of an old fart, but I often find that the best content is often found in conjunction with "font-family: sans-serif".
I'm a mechanical engineering PhD who works on numerical computing, data analysis and the like. I've spent several hundreds of dollars on fonts. Because I like things being just so, because I like seeing the artefacts I produce being nice to look at, and because they're just plain beautiful.
Day to day, I use open source fonts that Butterick recommends. But once in a while, I like using just nice stuff. It's like a nice fountain pen for others.
I believe everything you say. I hope you didn't feel attacked. It is just a feeling I often get when I'm online. Some people seem to spend more time on form than actual content, and while I agree that how things look is a part of the expression, I am somewhat of a brutalist because I feel that it rarely matters much, and most of the time it is a distraction.
but again, I am an old fart who is sad gopher lost.
We shouldn't forget that Google tried to push the whole remote browser stack attestation thing (WEI). That is where they want to go. We shouldn't follow them there.
that of course depends on what you mean by fast. Fast can mean "know how to make the job of the JIT easy" (which it does in many cases), but it can also mean "write C in Java" which is, arguably, worse than writing C in C.
it allows you to create a language that compiles to your original language.
You can abstract everything away. Not like Haskell where laziness accounts for some and typeclasses for some (and often an exponential growth in compile times). No, it property let's you change the language.
This doesn't strike me as better than the alternatives. In Haskell, it's just a few different functions to handle the different use cases. That strikes me as far better than one "function" that magically does different things depending on how it's called. It is local, I'll give you that. But it still seems bad because you have overloaded the semantics along multiple axes simultaneously. I prefer building blocks with only a single set of semantics each. I believe it's better to write precise code than DWIM code.
everybody agrees, which is why most sane people very rarely reach for macros. At the same time, it would be great if some of the libraries that rely on typeclass machinery for code generation could use lisp-like macros, because turning a 3 second recompile to a 35 second recompile (and I have experienced worse. Much worse.) is what kills exploratory programming. I heard optics mostly solves much of the problems of generic lens, but god forbid you use something like servant or polysemy.
Chez compiles a project of about 35000 lines (with heavy macro usage) in less than 0.5s on -O2.
I do believe there is some truth to it. The reason we have had an upswing in diagnosed people is that society's demands have gotten higher and what was previously considered normal is no longer within the normality corridor.
the same can be said about things like mild intellectual disability. With increasing demands, not just in the jib market but in society as a whole, is has become much harder to find a place for them. Not only are they poorer than the average person, they are a lot sicker - both physically and mentally - with a lot less resources to manage.
This is going to become a larger societal problem if we wait longer.
This is certainly how I feel. My desire to get a diagnosis and to start medication was entirely driven by the need to perform at work. After becoming self-employed and setting my own schedule, I lost the need entirely.
It popped up again after 5+ years, when AI started wrecking my industry.
Both times, I stopped medication because while it made me economically productive, it hollowed out the parts of me that I cared most about.
>
I do believe there is some truth to it. The reason we have had an upswing in diagnosed people is that society's demands have gotten higher and what was previously considered normal is no longer within the normality corridor.
Related quote from the Jargon file [1]:
"1994-95's fad behavioral disease was a syndrome called Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), supposedly characterized by (among other things) a combination of short attention span with an ability to ‘hyperfocus’ imaginatively on interesting tasks. In 1998-1999 another syndrome that is said to overlap with many hacker traits entered popular awareness: Asperger's syndrome (AS). This disorder is also sometimes called ‘high-function autism’, though researchers are divided on whether AS is in fact a mild form of autism or a distinct syndrome with a different etiology. AS patients exhibit mild to severe deficits in interpreting facial and body-language cues and in modeling or empathizing with others' emotions. Though some AS patients exhibit mild retardation, others compensate for their deficits with high intelligence and analytical ability, and frequently seek out technical fields where problem-solving abilities are at a premium and people skills are relatively unimportant. Both syndromes are thought to relate to abnormalities in neurotransmitter chemistry, especially the brain's processing of serotonin.
Many hackers have noticed that mainstream culture has shown a tendency to pathologize and medicalize normal variations in personality, especially those variations that make life more complicated for authority figures and conformists. Thus, hackers aware of the issue tend to be among those questioning whether ADD and AS actually exist; and if so whether they are really ‘diseases’ rather than extremes of a normal genetic variation like having freckles or being able to taste DPT. In either case, they have a sneaking tendency to wonder if these syndromes are over-diagnosed and over-treated. After all, people in authority will always be inconvenienced by schoolchildren or workers or citizens who are prickly, intelligent individualists — thus, any social system that depends on authority relationships will tend to helpfully ostracize and therapize and drug such ‘abnormal’ people until they are properly docile and stupid and ‘well-socialized’.
So hackers tend to believe they have good reason for skepticism about clinical explanations of the hacker personality. That being said, most would also concede that some hacker traits coincide with indicators for non-hyperactive ADD and AS — the status of caffeine as a hacker beverage of choice may be connected to the fact that it bonds to the same neural receptors as Ritalin, the drug most commonly prescribed for ADD. It is probably true that boosters of both would find a rather higher rate of clinical ADD among hackers than the supposedly mainstream-normal 3-5% (AS is rarer at 0.4-0.5%)."
That is very handy, especially when writing macros. I only have to look at assembly when I want to know about optimizations that are not visible in the source->source optimizer.
If I ever want to know if something is reified (which I never do) I can always look at the ASM.
reply