> but isn't this undermined by the lack of memory safety?
Yes, in my opinion, but from Zig's success you can see some people are willing to trade safety for a simpler language. Different people have different values
Though to be fair you can also use zig in old C projects, moving things incrementally. I don't know how many projects do that Vs greenfield projects though
But this statement is wrong and should not be propagated: "pid 0 refers to myself".
pid 0 refers to the thing that is running 'myself', not to myself, itself. It is the thing which gave way to allow 'myself' to be executing in the current context.
It is more accurate to say "pid 0 is the source of cpu 'attention' which allows myself 'awareness'", as it discovered I was not idle, and granted me power to proceed with processing ..
> Despite e-fuel makers promising a major scale-up this decade, it will make an “unnoticeable dent” in transportation emissions, says Oates at BNEF. “This is down to a combination of nascent technology and high cost of e-fuel production,” she adds.
This is a misunderstanding of what stock buybacks are. Companies do not buy their stock from themselves. They buy the stock from participants in the market.
Following your example, it'd be like the author of a book buying the book they wrote from someone else. If the author chooses to pay someone else 1000$ for their book, they can, but they will be wasting money.
A company doing a stock buyback is trading off their own capital (they have to spend it, it's not an infinite money glitch where they buy it from themselves) to get back shares of the company itself at the then-market-price. The market chooses whether that's a good trade. It may not
> I prefer to take advantage of the fact that without a proper shebang the file will be first executed by the shell
I know that bash does this, and possibly other shells, but it doesn't work in general when you `execv` the file (or when using the subprocess API on python f.i). But cool trick anyway
> When using jsx in the server you're extremely limited. You cannot just use any html tag unless the framework has a specific solution for it.
Doesn't look like that's the case in OP's solution, where HTML tags are transformed into Lua tables. I guess then there's some code that turns the lua tables into the html text to be sent to the client
One very curious thing I ran into today: this morning I woke up and when I checked my phone, the (Spanish) Wikipedia page for Cleopatra was open on my browser. I didn't myself open that intentionally, but I thought I must have accidentally tapped on some links while I was asleep, and ended up there.
But now I see this website and it turns out that "Cleopatra" is consistently one of the most visited pages in the Spanish Wikipedia. Odd! I googled and it turns out that it's because it's one of the example queries in Google Assistant (source, in Spanish: https://www.elespanol.com/omicrono/software/20230118/cleopat... ). I must have tapped on it without realising. And like me, thousands of others, every day! Fascinating
Funny you mention that. I was also confused by this same experience! I was recently introduced to the theory that most of the internet is bot activity and very little legitimate user activity. I think from a pure ratio perspective that’s very true, and this list made me ask “this is what people want to know about?” I was hoping to see people researching higher level queries, most of this seems like film and tv or fairly basic concepts like “sex”.
Makes sense to me that only very popular and generic stuff makes the top of the list. Even if Wikipedia was used more for high level queries in aggregate, there’s so many possible things people could be looking into that it’s necessarily more spread out than whatever is popular this week.
Bots don’t consume nearly as much bandwidth as people, they generally don’t care about assets like images or videos and the don’t download millions of copies of 100GB games. But they can make a very high volume of requests.
This is one of the things that _are_ addressed by the project.
Regarding your broader point, I don't know if adding a new language would/will help emacs or not but it's _plausible_ something like that would work. The plugin ecosystem in the vim world became more vibrant once writing them in lua was an option.
> I don't know if adding a new language would/will help emacs or not but it's _plausible_ something like that would work.
I don't think it is plausible. Emacs extensibility and power stems from the fact you can see and change almost everything. You can add advice, i.e. modify, any function there is. And you can inspect any object that exists in the heap. If you add another language into the mix, these two languages either have to share an object/data structure model or they have to bridge them somehow.
In vim you have plugins that add new commands, or hook into some callbacks. But in emacs you can extend every third-party functionality with another third-party library. Fragmenting the ecosystem into two language camps would probably diminish this advantage.
Do you think the average kindness of a person is positive? Or negative? If positive, and not knowing who your kidney is going to, donating a kidney is positive in expectation
I think the average kindness of a person depends on how much they can get away with without social, financial or legal repercussions. Maybe I am just pessimistic? Infosar as organ donation is concerned, I think it's nice to ask people to be considerate of each other and we should encourage that behavior. I am just saying that there are people who are abusive, opportunistic and uncaring. I don't like the idea of an altruistic person falling victim to that kind of person.
I don't know that this definition is very precise. For example, the kind `(->) r` (which you can roughly understand as the class of all functions that go from a fixed type `r` to other types) is a monad in haskell [1]. In what sense is this class of functions a "wrapper"?
Additionally, even if you insist that this reader monad is a "wrapper", your definition would also informally apply to things like `Applicative`, and not all applicatives are monads (some are).
Some monads are more easily understood as wrappers (`Maybe`, `List`, ...) and you can be very productive if you just stick to that level of understanding. But there's a deeper understanding that one can get.
Yes, in my opinion, but from Zig's success you can see some people are willing to trade safety for a simpler language. Different people have different values
Though to be fair you can also use zig in old C projects, moving things incrementally. I don't know how many projects do that Vs greenfield projects though