Probably not much: the requirement is exact equivalence of program inputs to outputs, and as such the agents are performing very mechanical translation from the existing C++ code to Rust. Their prompts aren't "implement X browser component in rust", they're "translate this C++ code to Rust, with these extra details that you can't glean from the code itself."
Iverson's point is more regarding semantics than syntax, though. The only mention of syntax suggests its better for it to be simple (presumably so that the semantics are closer to the surface). Every programming language is a notation for describing computation; notation is a catch all for all three levels: orthography, syntax, and semantics. APL is interesting because it not only uses an unconventional syntax, but also an unconventional orthography (obligate usage of special symbols), and its semantics are different as well from most languages (array programming). Iverson's point is that APL as a notation is valuable for making the structure of certain computations obvious, and that this point generalizes across programming languages.
GingerBill's article is making a narrower claim: that semantics are what determines a good notation usually, not syntax.
Breadboard is an excellent name for this project: it tells me that I can snap preexisting components (analogous to ICs) onto a grid and make connections (analogous to wires) between them.
Context, as always, is everything. I don't think that anyone is mistaking Peter Thiel for one of the elves of Valinor.
It is never wrong to be considered untrusted. It is only occasionally right to be considered trusted. Especially in zero-risk relationships that is the default on the anonymous internet.
“can” has multiple meanings in English. It can express both epistemic (describing the world accurately as is) and dynamic (describing the capabilities and attributes of an object) modes. If used epistemically, then parent’s phraseology makes perfect sense since his epistemology makes no claim about an object’s variability across time.
It depends on the language, paradigm (or lack thereof), quality/accuracy of the names.
My work’s codebase is 30 years of never-refactored C++. It takes an exceptional amount of focus and thinking to get even a cursory understanding of anything a particular method or class does or why it’s there.
But for languages like C, I agree with you (as long as function pointers aren’t used abused).
Because codepens can run javascript. And if a page has 50 of them, it might make the page load time much longer. I know that all these examples are pure CSS, and maybe there is a setting in codepen to disable the "Run" button and automatically run it. Still, getting to decide is generally a better pattern than presuming that that's what the user wants, especially when the fact that the code is inside a codepen makes it explicitly not an integral function of the page. "I thought this was just a blog, and now you want me to run all this javascript??" -- some JS hater, probably.
I appreciate getting to choose as much as possible when code runs.
It's easy enough to interpret Peanuts as being that. But Charles Schultz was not trying to present that. He was presenting the world as it is, and how one person can still maintain his optimism in spite of all that. This is made abundantly clear in some of the other strips, like the Father's day strip where he explains to Violet that no matter what, his dad will always love him, and he doesn't care that Violet's dad can buy her all the things.
Schultz was a relatively devout Presbyterian (though still very much a free thinker and criticized the direction American Christianity was going and its attitude about the various wars during the 60s-80s). He was incredibly optimistic about humanity, but he showed in Peanuts the reality of our "default" state, especially among kids.
Keep in mind that these are all 2nd and 3rd graders in the story.
Calvin is such an interesting character. He never "learns", similar to Charlie Brown, but his outlook is that of a scientist who just wants to "see what'll happen". Anything to occupy his hyperactive mind, whether it be spaceman spiff or a trip to the Triassic, or closer to reality, pranking Susie Derkins or trying to get the better of Moe (or Hobbes for that matter). He's not optimistic, but cynical. But his cynicism is irrelevant because he's driven by his avoidance of boredom.
One project that comes to mind for high-level programming style circuits-as-code:
https://github.com/atopile/atopile
Show HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39263854 More recent HN thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44548449
reply