If that’s something that regularly happens in the US, do you have any examples from the last decade, instead of three examples from 55-60 years ago?

Yeah, there’s a pretty big difference between a lawn in Vermont or Ohio, and one in Nevada or southern California.

Grass really, really depends on location and climate. I literally never water or fertilize my lawn; it looks fine.

The worse thing here is ecological. I keep my mower set to 4", and keep my lawn a bit longer than my neighbors. I see a ton of fire flies in my yard in the summer, and see a fraction as many in my neighbors yard.

Short lawns are terrible habitat, which makes them good for sports or a children’s play area. But 80% of my neighbor’s lawn is just aesthetic, which is something I really don’t get. Lawns are about as visually exciting as a beige wall. They’re a waste of space.

Fair. I should have said that many legless lizards aren’t snakes.

Not in the right clade, basically.

They look similar, but aren’t directly related. It’s similar to why legless lizards aren’t snakes, and bats aren’t birds.

They particularly look like diffraction spikes/starbursts.

Astigmatism, cataracts, glaucoma or smudged glasses can cause you to see starbursts when you look at bright lights at night.

I assume his point is that calling Manchin or Sinema “liberal” isn’t super accurate.

And memory bugs are only a subset of bugs that can be exploited in a program. Pretending Rust means no more exploitation is stupid.

This is facile.

According to Microsoft, about 70% of security bugs they see are memory safety issues.

Yes: if you introduce memory safety, there’s still those 30% of security bugs left. But, well, I’d rather worry about 30% of issues than 100%…

Similarly, I use libraries that eliminate SQL injections unless you really go out of your way.

Emacs is a bunch older than common lisp.

One of its more idiosyncratic design decisions was using dynamic scope, rather than lexical scope. They did add in per-file lexical scope, though.

It also just doesn’t implement a lot of common lisp’s standard library.

Emacs unfortunately uses Emacs lisp, not common lisp or scheme.

That sounds a bit more like a nightclub.

I’d never want to live next to a nightclub, but living next to a tavern or pub would be fine.

Vav is a product of ashkenaszi pronunciations due to yiddish. Originally it’s Waw.

Vav has nothing to do with Yiddish.

The pronunciation shift occurred in a large number of groups that didn’t speak Yiddish, and shifts like that also aren’t uncommon cross-linguistically.

The exact same shift happened in Italian, as well: v in classical Latin made a w sound, but morphed to a v in most romance languages.

Pronunciation shifts don’t have to come out of influence of other languages, they just kinda happen normally on their own. Sometimes this causes spelling changes (such as the many Spanish words with an h that came from a Latin f, like hablo or hijo), other times it changes the sound of the letter, such as how the Greek phi went from an aspirated p to an f sound, or a j went from a y sound to an English j.

And the multiple names for God thing comes from Kaballah

Kabbalah talks about the multiple names of god, but the Torah itself uses a number of different names for god.

For that matter, look at Hebrew names. You have names like Matityahu (gift of god), Daniel (god is my judge), and eliyahu (god is my god), using different names of god. Why do biblical Hebrew names use both el and yahu to refer to god, if multiple names was a kabbalistic innovation?

Symbols display with friendly string-y names in a number of languages. Clojure, for example, has a symbol type.

And a number of languages display friendly strings for enumy things - Scala, Haskell, and Rust spring to mind.

The problem with strings over enums with a nice debugging display is that the string type is too wide. Strings don’t tell you what values are valid, strings don’t catch typos at compile time, and they’re murder when refactoring.

Clojure symbols are good at differentiation between symbolly things and strings, though they don’t catch typos.

The other problem the article mentions is strings over a proper struct/adt/class hierarchy is that strings don’t really have any structure to them. Concatenating strings is brittle compared to building up an AST then rendering it at the end.

Edit: autocorrect messed a few things up I didn’t catch.

It’s not that there’s anything unnatural about water. It’s just not a remedy for anything but dehydration.

Javascript is generally considered OOP, but classes weren’t widely available till 2017.

Inheritance isn’t fundamental to OOP, and neither are interfaces. You can have a duck- typed OOP language without inheritance, although I don’t know of any off the top of my head.

Honestly, the more fundamental thing about OOP is that it’s a programming style built around objects. Sometimes OO languages are class based, or duck typing based, etc. But you’ll always have your data carrying around it’s behavior at runtime.

keeping state (data) and behavior (functions) that operate on that state, together

Importantly, that’s “together at runtime”, not in terms of code organization. One of the important things about an object is that it has dynamic dispatch. Your object is a pointer both to the data itself and to the implementation that works on that data.

There’s a similar idea that’s a bit different that you see in Haskell, Scala, and Rust - what Haskell calls type classes. Rust gives it a veneer of OO syntax, but the semantics themselves are interestingly different.

In particular, the key of type classes is keeping data and behavior separate. The language itself is responsible for automagically passing in the behavior.

So in Scala, you could do something like

def sum[A](values: List[A])(implicit numDict: Num[A]) = values.fold(numDict.+)(numDict.zero)

Or

def sum[A: Num](values: List[A]) = values.fold(_ + _)(zero)

Given a Num typeclass that encapsulates numeric operations. There’s a few important differences:

1. All of the items of that list have to be the same type of number - they’re all Ints or all Doubles or something

2. It’s a list of primitive numbers and the implementation is kept separate - no need for boxing and unboxing.

3. Even if that list is empty, you still have access to the implementation, so you can return a type-appropriate zero value

4. Generic types can conditionally implement a typeclass. For example, you can make an Eq instance for List[A] if A has an Eq instance. So you can compare List[Int] for equality, but not List[Int => Int].

Yeah, projects also exist in the real world and practical considerations matter.

The legacy C/C++ code base might slowly and strategically have components refactored into rust, or you might leave it.

The C/C++ team might be interested in trying Rust, but have to code urgent projects in C/C++.

In the same way that if you have a perfectly good felling axe and someone just invented the chain saw, you’re better off felling that tree with your axe than going into town, buying a chainsaw and figuring out how to use it. The axe isn’t really the right tool for the job anymore, but it still works.

C is not how a computer truly works.

If you want to know how computers work, learn assembly and circuit design. You can learn C without ever thinking about registers, register allocation, the program counter, etc.

Although you can learn assembly without ever learning about e.g. branch prediction. There’s tons of levels of abstraction in computers, and many of the lower level ones try to pretend you’ve still got a computer from the 80s even though CPUs are a lot more complex than they used to be.

As an aside, I’ve anecdotally heard of some schools teaching Rust instead of C as a systems language in courses. Rust has a different model than C, but will still teach you about static memory vs the stack vs the heap, pointers, etc.

Honestly, if I had to write some systems software, I’d be way more confident in any Rust code I wrote than C/C++ code. Nasal demons scare me.

Right tool for the job, sure, but that evolves over time.

Like, years back carpenters didn’t have access to table saws that didn’t have safety features that prevent you from cutting off your fingers by stopping the blade as soon as it touches them. Now we do. Are old table saws still the “right tool for the job”, or are they just a dangerous version of a modern tool that results in needless accidents?

Is C still the right tool for the job in places where Rust is a good option?

Apparently my brain silently inserted “ing with” into the middle of “program functions” a half dozen times without me noticing.