Comments by "" (@diadetediotedio6918) on "ThePrimeTime" channel.

  1.  @CottidaeSEA  It is not a cached result of an interpretation, really. It turns the IL into machine code that will then run and give the result, it's not like the JIT is doing 2 + 2 = 4 then storing 4 as machine code, is more like JIT is converting: IL -> .maxstack 3 .locals init ( [0] int32 'a', [1] int32 'y', [2] int32 'z' ) IL_0000: ldc.i4.2 IL_0001: stloc.0 IL_0002: ldc.i4.2 IL_0003: stloc.1 IL_0004: ldloc.0 IL_0005: ldloc.1 IL_0006: add IL_0007: stloc.2 IL_0008: ret into ASM -> mov eax, 2 mov ebx, 2 add ecx, eax (this is just a simple example) Of course, JIT also does some optimizations in the process, so something like 2 + 2 would probably be optimized right into 4, but it is not a general rule nor it guides the entire generation, it is much more a just in time compilation rather than a just in time intepretation + caching.
    3
  2. ​ @christopherpepin6059  No? He did not. He's assuming you already know the position of the item, the index, and if you know the time complexity is constant. With linked lists even indexes need to be traversed in order to get to the correct element, and this is not what make them slower than normal lists. What makes them slower is memory spreading and being prone to cache misses, in this sense a normal vector would perform better even if you need to iterate it entirely first.
    3
  3. ​ @cherry777-e9p  Bro, nobody really understands what "magic" means in context of programming. People use this word to describe things they don't understand or hate, like the old phrase "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.".
    3
  4. Show us the code, maybe it is a simple oversight you have.
    3
  5. 2:30 pm I think that was a good statement, even if it seems superficial if looked at without a specific scrutiny. There is a pattern to these people's reviews and it usually goes like this: * I like you, you've done things that please me and/or my friends and/or you've followed some kind of agenda that pleases me -> You're very interested, you do things because you care and that's it * I don't like you for whatever reason, or you're irrelevant to me -> This is a company, of course it just wants to make a profit, isn't it obvious? There is an evil plan behind this company's actions because companies are evil, BOOOOOO! When you stop seeing the world as a big platform where people are fighting and there are these abstract entities that people invoke to make their opponents look like monsters, like "profit" or "being a company", and you start seeing that there are human beings there even if they are shitty human beings, things just seem less hysterical.
    3
  6. 33:50 This is really dumbshit I was not expecting. Even before AI I was already using LSPs to their fullest and was like typing 1/3 of my code (because you just type one or three letters and the LSP suggests something, and now you can complete everything wich is double or third the size of it in the long form), this is completely absurd by any metric.
    3
  7.  @arnontzori  "(although they're working on it in C#, it'll never have full native AoT support)" > Doubt
    3
  8. Oh boi, people are gonna cope so hard to deal with this now
    3
  9. Maybe you are just trying to blame bob for the errors these programmers commited.
    3
  10.  @2khz  Thus, these languages also "protect" you from how memory "actually works" in many senses of the term. The concept of a pointer does not exist for the computer, it is an abstraction that we created to give meaning to memory addresses. The memory addresses we use are not real either, they are hidden behind a layer of conversion from imaginary addresses to real addresses outside user-space. Furthermore, concepts like "double pointers" and memory indirection only exist because programming languages are an effective abstraction about how memory works. The only thing we can say is really neat is the fact that overall we're under a relatively thin layer before the hardware.
    3
  11. The first thing you should ask is: What does zig have to do with prime's arguments? Is Zig the unique language that deals with errors without exceptions?
    3
  12. You are saying this is your opinion and at the same time speaking as if it were true, I would add an IMHO at the beginning of your comment.
    3
  13.  @chrisdaman4179  I think you are feeling some sort of psychosis with these mysterious "rust people"
    3
  14.  @marcs9451  I think understanding contextually what it means to "dictate" something is important here, but anyway. He's doing this in what <he> thinks is the right way to "shoot yourself in the foot", and he's trying to claim that this is the best way to learn something. I don't think that's the case, not even close, I've known people who learned a lot more through a gradual climb in difficulty than anything like starting directly on the edge of the precipice could bring, and I've also known people who don't work like that. Trying to find a "perfect formula" for obtaining deep knowledge is a task that is doomed to failure from its inception. In the same way that A can obtain deep knowledge through starting with the most complicated things and that would cause him more failures, B can obtain deep knowledge through an association for usefulness or curiosity, "shooting himself in the foot" can be a disincentive of knowledge for B and an excellent stimulus for A, I myself have been between A and B in my life and so I feel that attempts to take it that way can be dangerous to one's quest for knowledge. But anyway, that's just a rant of mine, you can ignore it. Sometimes I feel extremely tired of people all the time trying to "point out" the best way to do this or that, as if it were possible to know what will work better or worse for a person, sometimes it's better to just let it be.
    3
  15. This is a knife with two blades, sometimes you just don't need the stacktrace and just want to represent a simple error, and exceptions are overkill for that. But any language with errors as values can solve the stacktrace thing, it is not a blocker or something that makes exceptions the unique solution for this.
    3
  16. And you just need to use like one of the 2 unique mainstream languages that adopted that, one of them is not entirely happy with it and the other had its spiritual successor (Kotlin) ditching them entirely. I think checked exceptions solve the problem, but they are much more annoying to deal with.
    3
  17. ​ @huveja9799  It is almost impossible to not be emotionally related to your tools, this is like saying artisans should have no emotions with their tools, using something in everyday basis makes you to link in a certain way with this thing. What you <should> do, however, is to not just use your emotions while selecting the best tool for the task, if you can abstract them you are in good terms.
    3
  18. No, it means you like when the language is actually sincere to what a type-system is instead of handling types as some kind of "part of the normal syntax but pero no mucho".
    3
  19. WASM can be used to replace the need of docker in future, and also to replace JS in browsers, so it kinda is a W.
    3
  20. I think this is a problem with your perception of what Rust is. You expect a language that has everything you need, but that's what high-level languages are for. Rust wasn't meant to simply be a high-level language, it was meant to be a consistent and systems language (and he's very good at that), so a lot of things still need to be established at a high level (the kind of thing Rust also tends to worry but not as much) until you have the kind of experience you want to have, which frankly is "move fast and break fast", and that's just not what Rust is these days. If you sit back, relax, and try to project what you're writing concisely into the code, you'll find that it performs very well for the overwhelming majority of tasks.
    3
  21.  @Boomras1  If there are "rules" defined by some bullshit bureaucrats we are not alking about a free market.
    3
  22.  @alexgoncharov6430  You just reafirmed your own previous statement, thou understand this is not how to respond to someone, right?
    3
  23. I don't think Rust is old enough to have many games developed in it, even C++ took a while before it had its first successful commercial titles and, at the time, games were much scarcer so there was more room for innovation (C++ was conceived in 1979, and the first commercial games using the language only started to be released from 1990 onwards). Not to mention that almost every time I see someone developing a game in Rust, there are a number of people to say "you are developing in the wrong language, it should be C++", "why did you choose such a strange language that is not used for games instead of C++?", people are simply creating a self-fulfilling prophecy about Rust in a way that everything that is done in the language receives a considerable amount of criticism, and when it is not done people say "I will only use it if there are products made in it", it's funny if you stop to think about it. But having said that, there are games being made with Rust and I believe that in the next 5 or 10 years, if nothing colossal happens in the industry, we should see good games made in Rust coming out.
    2
  24.  @Tabonx_  In Version 6 is easy without xcode, I tried it. Still not a great experience, unfortunately it appears that the LSP consumes like 30% of CPU all times
    2
  25.  @mattmurphy7030  I can certainly understand that some languages are more complex than others, and that some have more layers of abstraction than others (and even that is controversial, some people would say that C is simpler than Python for example, due to the "machine obviousness" of the language), but this does not imply that this window of lack of understanding and stream of consciousness does not exist in <any language>. Something being simpler to get involved doesn't imply that there won't be an engagement process once you've left a project. And for all intents and purposes, saying that Rust is not "the simplest language" should imply what? Can you tell me which is the simplest language? Because that's a dangerous game (and I'm not saying it is, but that kind of statement needs a greater rational sieve than what's being put here).
    2
  26. I think if we want to have good things on linux, we need to make them ourselves (or configure them ourselves, if they already exist). If we let things stay good on windows, it will always be this way and microsoft will have this power forever
    2
  27. LOL, you feel frustrated because someone said other editor is good?
    2
  28. 13:53 Like literally <every single thing> that you can call readable, there's no point to say something is not readable if you don't understand that thing. "Oh sheez, this mathematical proof is not readable" (said by a math illiterate).
    2
  29. > maybe our inteligence is not that deep as we highly believe you know? Or maybe you should stop taking psychodelics and start studying more, because there are at least 3 fundamental flaws in your reasoning.
    2
  30. Go has not such a big perf impact, but the runtime does come with a cost. But Rust is trying to solve this, I recommend to look into 'keyword generics initiative'
    2
  31. We had massive layoffs since always, lol. I remember since 2020 people were complaining about this (when I started noticing, before there also this).
    2
  32. The compiler ensure some of the borrow-checker rules in unsafe Rust too, just not all of them or too strictly. Also, the syntax and tooling are great IMHO.
    2
  33. Maybe it would be more interesting, and specially almost as fast by rewritting it in C#. I assume that, depending of the complexity of your service, it would had cost 3-5 times instead of 20 times, but I think you should consider if you had already proficient with Rust before writting, you can't just expect to take a completely new and fundamentally different language than you're comfortable with, and develop it as fast as with your primary language.
    2
  34. AI is a very strong topic, and while I hold skepticism against it and what it will do to developers, I still think it could be really good for productivity in some places if it became better But you know, this knife has two sides.
    2
  35.  @isodoubIet  It does not "disallows error-neutral functions", what are you talking about? Plus, function coloring is required whenever you <use any type system at all>, and it is not a problem because the Rust type system can infer the types for you, so most of the time this is not a concern. Otherwise you need to make an argument of why function coloring is necessarily a bad thing.
    2
  36.  @isodoubIet  > Of course it's a bad thing. It inhibits code reuse It really depends on what you are calling "code reuse", I'd need to disagree with you on this one if you don't show some concrete real world examples of this. > loosens the system modeling as you're now encouraged to report and handle errors even if there's no possibility of such This is a sign of bad API design and not a problem with having errors as values. If you are returning a "maybe error" from a function then it <maybe> an error, it is a clear decision to make. > increases coupling between unrelated parts of the code I mean, not really, you can always flatten errors or discard them easily in an EAV model. > and can force refactorings of arbitrarily large amounts of code if even one call site is modified. Again, this is true for any kind of function coloring, including <type systems> and <checked exceptions> (like Java has). A good designed code should be resilient to this kind of problem most of the time. > You can say "this is a tradeoff I'm willing to make". That is fine. You cannot say this isn't a bad thing. I absolutely can say it is not a bad thing. It is not a bad thing. See? I don't think function coloring is necessarily bad, thus I would not agree with you upfront this is a bad thing. I think being explicit about what a code does and the side effects that it can trigger is a good thing, an annoying thing sometimes I can concede, but I cannot call it a "bad thing" on itself, only the parts that are actually annoying (and the same goes for when you don't have this kind of coloring and then it blows up in your head because of it, it is a "bad thing", not the lack of coloring itself).
    2
  37. So true hah
    2
  38. The fun thing with all the clean code haters out there, is that even Muratori was more reasonable when discussing with Bob, and the overhall feeling of that discussion was not "clean code is a scam" but rather "we should give more focus on performance". Shitting on things is what internet does.
    2
  39. If you try rust again I recommend turning off the chat. I almost never saw such a random hateful behavior but in all videos where you use Rust.
    2
  40.  stysner4580  Bad system design.
    2
  41. Every damn regulation trying to cram more and more bureaucracy on top of an area that is largely free (like software development) will inevitably use the utterly threadbare and blatant excuse of doing this to "increase security", and people will sell themselves out for this single empty word.
    2
  42. I can't understand, sincerely, why there are people in comments that don't get the joke? LMAO
    2
  43.  @Spartan322  Gladly, the world is larger than your imagination.
    2
  44. 10:00 I think this is a pretty blind way of seeing things, new libraries could be build on top of mojo with the same performance of C and the readability of python, this by itself is a win. But from this to these things occur, well, there's a road.
    2
  45. Because greed in general is a feature of materialism. If you don't believe or value nothing nonmaterial, it is just a consequence to direct your love towards what's purely physical.
    2
  46. I think you just don't understand the difference between this and these other solutions, it is alright you can take your time.
    2
  47. 13:45 So, the reality every single time punches you in the face for your claims
    2
  48. I don't think they "sidestep" the problem, they rely on a runtime and/or different constructs to do the biddings
    2
  49. ​ @jl789nz  There's a difference between "knowing" something and knowing something. An artificial level of knowledge is sufficient to have a codebase in a given language. A more experienced level is what it takes to make good code.
    2
  50. Rust panic is not like segfault, it is more like an exception if exceptions where treated as they should be (as <exceptions>). Panics should not occur absolutely if you use functions with proper error handling.
    2