• 0 Posts
  • 66 Comments
Joined 7 months ago
cake
Cake day: November 26th, 2023

help-circle







  • It’s new to me, I think it’s saying that your system is built up by you declaring what you want in a file, a single source that everything comes from.

    It’s atomic because each action the system takes is carefully completed rather than bailing out and requiring you to fix something.

    It’s immutable meaning you declare how you want things to be set up and then critical changes stem from those declarations and nothing else. You would obviously generate preferences, save data, etc. but the files that make the system / packages work are carefully locked.

    It’s like the concept of flatpaks + structured system defining + modern common sense OS operations?





  • You use lifetimes to annotate parameters and return values in order to tell the compiler about how long things must last for your function to be valid. You can link a specific input with the output, or explicitly separate them. If you don’t give lifetimes the language uses some basic rules to do it for you. If it can’t, eg it’s ambiguous, then it’s a compile error and you need to do it manually.

    It’s one of the harder concepts of rust to explain succinctly. But imagine you had a function that took strA and strB, used strB to find a subsection of strA, and then return a slice of strA. That slice is tied to strA. You would use 'a annotation for strA and the return value, and 'b for strB.

    Rust compiler will detect the lifetime being shorter than expected.


    Also, ownership semantics. Think c++ move semantics. Only one person is left with a good value, the previous owners just have garbage data they can’t use anymore. If you created a thing on the heap and then gave it away, you wouldn’t have it anymore to free at the end. If you want to have “multiple owners” then you need ref counting and such, which also stops this problem of premature freeing.


    Edit: one more thing: reference rules. You can have many read-only references to a thing, or one mutable reference. Unless you’re doing crazy things, the compiler simply won’t let you have references to a thing, and then via one of those references free that thing, thereby invalidating the other references.



  • mhague@lemmy.worldtoProgrammer Humor@lemmy.mlThanks ...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t see a negative. It’s foss so you ought to be relaxed about others using your code. The issues are probably just articulating problems that were already there. If it’s stuff you don’t care about… it’s a foss repository so you just ignore it.




  • When a computer reads some signal, the 0s and 1s in it’s memory is the data. The data must be processed so that the computer can understand it.

    This computer is using threads to read neuron activity. It must necessarily receive data because if it didn’t it wouldn’t be reading neuron activity. They’re the same thing.

    This data is processed so that the computer can make sense of the brain. Once it understands some activity it generates signals that can control external devices.

    Here’s an example. Imagine a device that monitors the heart and does something to fix a problem. The device would get data on the heart and process the data so that it can perform it’s function.

    Wouldn’t monitoring health concerns and mitigating data loss be extremely important in these scenarios?


  • Put it this way: If you took a thread talking about some tech from a joke community, and a thread about the same topic from a generic technology community, you won’t be able to tell them apart. People will bring the same energy and mindset to both. Jokes and “lol get rekt company I hate” will be pushed to the top, because they totally contribute to the discussion, while basic observations like “removing functionality is bad” will be pushed down. 👍


  • mhague@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzbugs
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    I don’t think it matters in most contexts. When people are casually talking about it, venomous and poisonous are both stand-ins for “it has venom.” They’re not telling other people, “actually, don’t eat spiders.” I was just joking about the classic pedant line about spiders.

    But it does make a difference on paper. I’m curious how you would express this in German: A black widow is venomous and in theory a healthy human can eat a dead black widow with no ill effects.