|
Compared to something like JSON, protobuf is an absolute delight. Where it runs into problems is mostly that it doesn't go far enough in what it does. If you like strong typing, you'll be frustrated by the shortcomings of its type system. If you're using it because you need something faster than json, you'll inevitably start looking jealously at capn proto's even better performance.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 17:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:10 |
|
Using it a few years ago, protobuf's Python library was 10x slower than json.loads, and types used about 4x as much memory. This is probably just the official Python protobuf library being absolute poo poo, but it didn't inspire confidence in the rest of the stack
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 17:26 |
|
Good or bad, Protobuf is here to stay and Google do their best to push it absolutely everywhere. One example of this is tensorflow, setting a session's configuration parameters. If you're working with tensorflow from Python (as most scientists do) , it looks reasonable enough, nothing to worry about :code:
code:
code:
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 18:08 |
|
I used ProtoBuf for a video game once, it was great.
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 18:40 |
|
i can't complain about protobufs when i also have to deal with graphql
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 18:42 |
|
GraphQL is the gravest example of HTTP abuse
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 18:47 |
|
I have no experience with protobuf but I have used avro and from what I heard they are similar in use?
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 18:50 |
|
Carbon dioxide posted:I have no experience with protobuf but I have used avro and from what I heard they are similar in use? Not quite. From their website: quote:Comparison with other systems
|
# ? Feb 28, 2020 19:30 |
|
https://twitter.com/jtech63/status/1234600045787394048
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 13:11 |
|
That looks like a CORS issue, nothing to do with leap year.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 14:48 |
|
I think the site was just down.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 14:52 |
|
Isn't RobinHood that wallstreetbets app that is essentially gambling-but-we-pretend-to-know-what-were-doing? In before "that's just normal gambling" Also in before "that's just normal trading"
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 14:59 |
|
I assume the tweet is about requesting March 3's data on March 2. (No idea if that's in error in this particular context.)
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 16:23 |
|
I would be surprised if failure at CORS preflight time was that sensitive to the request URL.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 16:27 |
|
OddObserver posted:I would be surprised if failure at CORS preflight time was that sensitive to the request URL. It’s not, somebody misconfigured a server sometime this morning causing CORS errors, and for some reason twitter is blaming it on leap year.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 16:35 |
|
Jen heir rick posted:It’s not, somebody misconfigured a server sometime this morning causing CORS errors, and for some reason twitter is blaming it on leap year. You see that the responses are 503s, yeah? The CORS poo poo is a red herring because the 503 responses because their poo poo was down didn't happen to include the right headers. https://status.robinhood.com/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/03/robinhood-will-offer-case-by-case-compensation-for-its-outage-on-the-day-markets-gained-1-1-trillion/ You're right that it's not because of time zones, but it ain't CORS either
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 17:13 |
|
Ok, good to know I’m half right. It just really bugged me that everyone on twitter was saying it’s cause of leap year.
|
# ? Mar 3, 2020 17:24 |
|
Jen heir rick posted:Ok, good to know I’m half right. It just really bugged me that everyone on twitter was saying it’s cause of leap year. Is everyone ignorantly misdiagnosing it as a leap year bug with no knowledge of the systems involved really that different to doing the same but with CORS? Programmers were a mistake.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2020 02:18 |
|
I think it is a little different to see a CORS error message and assume it’s a CORS error vs assuming it’s a leap year bug. But fair enough. I am the horror this time.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2020 02:34 |
|
NtotheTC posted:Isn't RobinHood that wallstreetbets app that is essentially gambling-but-we-pretend-to-know-what-were-doing? Though Robinhood did have that wonderful coding horror recently where you could get infinite leverage.
|
# ? Mar 4, 2020 18:37 |
|
Soricidus posted:What was that language that did arithmetic operator precedence based on whitespace rather than order-of-operations It's an experimental feature of Nim. code:
|
# ? Mar 4, 2020 23:52 |
|
Doom Mathematic posted:It's an experimental feature of Nim. What an incredible nightmare that would become.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 02:40 |
|
True, it doesn't even support tabs.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 03:12 |
|
Here's Jon Blow again with a problem that has never been properly solved in inferior programming languages: overhead-free lambdas. https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1235029372614012928 https://twitter.com/Jonathan_Blow/status/1235030416253284352
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 05:17 |
|
So he’s discovered either macros or inline functions and given them a new name?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 06:06 |
|
Well if he's calling them hygienic macros...Wikipedia posted:Hygienic macros are macros whose expansion is guaranteed not to cause the accidental capture of identifiers. They are a feature of programming languages such as Scheme,[1] Dylan[2], Rust, and Julia.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 06:32 |
|
even in coding horrors maybe just not even pay attention to jblow
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 06:54 |
|
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 07:50 |
|
Is the horror that whoever drew that emoji thinks movie popcorn is sold in solid red boxes? Did they confuse it with the mcd fry?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 08:44 |
|
To be fair, it is quite common practice among first year programmers, before they get shamed or beaten out of the habit.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 09:48 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Is the horror that whoever drew that emoji thinks movie popcorn is sold in solid red boxes? Did they confuse it with the mcd fry? It's certainly a part, I needed to copy-paste google that emoji to see what it's supposed to be.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 10:21 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Is the horror that whoever drew that emoji thinks movie popcorn is sold in solid red boxes? Did they confuse it with the mcd fry? What the gently caress is this post I don't know or care what the popcorn containers look like at cinemas near me. Why do you have an opinion on something so inane? How does it even occur to you to pay attention to this?
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 11:33 |
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Is the horror that whoever drew that emoji thinks movie popcorn is sold in solid red boxes? Did they confuse it with the mcd fry? While fries doesn't capture the classic "watching piece of entertainment" as Cinema popcorn did, I think fries could work in a modern Netflix context.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 11:35 |
|
Hammerite posted:What the gently caress is this post Programmers are literally notorious for debating their precise preference of which invisible character is best. Also, you don't need macros for that Joe Blow thing to work with zero overhead. I research language implementation and maintain a compiler, where we implement higher-order functions with defunctionalisation (a 70s technique) to get the same effect (and in contrast to most macro systems, it does not affect type checking). Athas fucked around with this message at 11:54 on Mar 5, 2020 |
# ? Mar 5, 2020 11:51 |
|
Athas posted:Programmers are literally notorious for debating their precise preference of which invisible character is best. a wise poster once said: Subjunctive posted:there is no technical statement so anodyne and self-evident that it can’t be weaponized for lukewarm dunking on other forum participants
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 12:08 |
|
Coming from Scheme/Lisp, using a macro where a function will do is anathema. What he shows also looks closer to the grand old compiler-optimization-defying fexpr, not the venerable macro that was designed to replace fexpr. Or we're giving him too much credit and it's just preprocessor text substitution garbage
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 13:52 |
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Here's Jon Blow again with a problem that has never been properly solved in inferior programming languages: overhead-free lambdas.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 14:05 |
|
My favourite thing about how bool x = (cond ? true : false); is more readable than bool x = cond; is that you can make it even more readable by writing it as bool x = ((cond ? true : false) ? true : false); And you can make it even more readable again, by writing bool x = (((cond ? true : false) ? true : false) ? true : false); There's probably a way to make it even more readable than that, but I'm still working on it
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 14:55 |
|
Hammerite posted:My favourite thing about how bool x = (cond ? true : false); is more readable than bool x = cond; is that you can make it even more readable by writing it as bool x = ((cond ? true : false) ? true : false); Additional benefit is that it adds three layers of reliability and security, useful if you make financial solutions.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 15:09 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 09:10 |
|
Jon blow reminds me of a friend, who works at Google, who is a huge Haskell fan. Like "EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW HASKELL" huge.
|
# ? Mar 5, 2020 15:31 |