IIRC Kobyashi maru incident involves a no-win situation where you change the rules of the game to create a winning situation. How are we looking at a Kobyashi maru incident here? Can you explain?
The shapes generally progress in difficulty until they are deemed “impossible” for any human shape rotator to figure out.
If you reduce the problem to counting instead of shape rotation (3D matrix multiplication) many humans can “shape rotate” to impossibly high levels of IQ
You can just define the first turn to be Right no matter how it is oriented.
If you are not happy with that then just rotate the first segment until it looks Right to you. Then label the other turns.
If you are still not happy with the word Right to denote the first term then just make up new notation. Define the first turn to be 1. Use numbers to denote turns if you object to using Left and Right.
Exactly! I don't understand why modern languages can't make "print" simpler. Is it too much to ask to expose a print function in the default namespace?
It is too much to ask for because Odin is not trying to optimize for beginners nor is it trying to pollute the global namespace with things that require a large runtime. Odin is a systems level programming language and you may not want to use such a feature that uses RTTI in the first place.
Is doing `import "core:fmt"` or something else too much to ask for?
I just want a language to meet me half way. Very little is “too much to ask for,” but why not eliminate boilerplate? If it’s a special case, I will sacrifice a goat to the gods of engineering purity and hope they forgive me.
Intriguing idea. Would have been nice if the OP included some stats and data behind the research too. Now it is just the author's word.
I am in half the mind to forward this article to some of my colleagues in the academia but without seeing the backing data and research the article will be met with some skepticism.
Yeah... 512 KB is a lot of bytes for text-only website. For text-only sites the threshold should be much lower. Like ten times lower. 50 KB club anyone?
Can't we just deploy the Smalltalk or Common Lisp code and not make changes to the live image? Then we can deploy Smalltalk/Common Lisp projects just like we deploy Python/Ruby prjoects. Can't we?
For Common Lisp: sure we can. We can run a program from the sources, as a script, just like Python, and we can build a binary, with all dependencies baked in. CL has the feature to save the current image: it's excellent for development (see how Ravenpack ships images with several GBs of data baked in: the image will start instantly, you won't have to wait for your development data to be initialized again).
And we can run the Lisp program and not touch it. But… if we want, we can easily connect to the running Lisp image, introspect it, change a couple parameters… or do a software upgrade, which can involve installing Lisp libraries… and we could connect to the image on the remote server from our editor and develop the app (while still saving the changes in source control locally), but that would be silly and it isn't a standard way.
Yeah, just don't save the image. Whenever you restart the program use a fresh image. This is pretty much indistinguishable from a "normal" program's state when it is running.
Here are some libraries and a program in Smalltalk Interchange Format being loaded into a Smalltalk image, the image being saved, and the saved image being used to run the program on the command line —