> More importantly, this design makes it easy to compose whole programs that will never be paused by a garbage collection by avoiding cyclical structures.
Or by "breaking" cycles, which will trigger the reference count deallocation.
F# and C# are typed scripting languages. F# is quite similar to python in script form (.fsx), and has OCamls expressiveness, exhaustive pattern matching, and type inference. That results in highly expressive, terse, and ergonomic domain code.
Isn't it a waste to run a test suite for a program that would run 1M times a day in production?
The key adjective here is successfully run. You want to detect any errors as early as possible. Ideally even at the early stages of writing the script, when a typechecker is already able to point at certain errors, and thus help avoid missteps in further design.
> Isn't a waste to essentially reinterpret an entire program that may be run 5000 times a day?
This is a dated prejudice that I shared.
To get started coding with AI I made a dozen language comparison project for a toy math problem. F# floored me with how fast it was, nearly edging out C and Rust on my leaderboard, twice as fast as OCaml, and faster than various compiled languages.
Compiling could in principle be fastest, if we had compilers that profiled hours of execution before optimizing code, and only then for "stable" problems. No one writes a compiler like this. In practice, Just In Time interpreters are getting all the love, and it shows. They adapt to the computation. My dated prejudice did not allow for this.
I script with Rust via cargo-script, it works great. Scripting is a task for when you want to achieve something in one file instead of a full blown application. It is not about the language, you can script in C or assembly if you so chose.
That just moves the question to "why is this one being shared" then. I don't think "because the authors didn't know better than to avoid sharing it like 'most of us'" is a particularly good answer.
The why: because Lua, Python, JavaScript, Janet, etc lack many or all these features. And each of these features is known to make life easier for a human programmer.
Looking through that list of features, Ruby (the dynamic language I know best) has all but 1 built-in (and the other can be added with Gems). I'm guessing Python probably has them all too (but I don't know Python that well). They're pretty common. So the why still isn't clear.
The main Ruby implementation is also fairly easy to embed. It's just not easy to embed multiple MRI ruby instances in a single application, and it's also a lot bigger than mruby.
midges can fly, so presumably they would hit the web at random points. as to why flying would be useful for the midges, if they consume biofilms on the surfaces, that's less clear. perhaps over time the midges will evolve away from flying and the spiders will have to adjust their strategy.
This is based on the Dear ImGui library/framework [0]. It's not intended, strictly speaking, for standard desktop applications. It's intended for applications that use 3d rendering, like games or CAD.
Although you could certainly use it as a desktop editor if you wanted to, I think the real value is in embedding.
The practical demonstration in the video are fun and memorable. Realistically I'd take a lighter case without ability to submerge the whole thing in mud and set fire to it, but I'm in urban UK. It seems to be built for a warzone, milled out of solid aluminium?
Or built for a place with only dirt roads, heavy muds during a rainy season, probably very limited ability to get spare parts, and a desire to use it for years after buying it.
I'd have thought reducing weight would provide more utility (in rural monsoon areas, say) if violent contact wasn't part of the problem - it might survive crashes that destroy the bike, maybe that's the design decision.
FWIW, I'm not saying it's wrong, just notable in the apparent robustness.
I don't think 64 RFID antennas would be that bad - you can etch them onto a PCB. That would be a pretty large PCB, I guess, but you could segment it if necessary.
Ha ha. I never thought of that as a selling point for affiliate links. I suppose Amazon will make less money if people print their own books as well.