I'm working on an app similar to Anki, where I can make my own cards for spaced repetition, organize them by folders and tags, and can run different queries to get groups to practice from. I'm curious what features people wish Anki had. I didn't love it when I tried it.
I want to use my app mainly for language learning, but as a demo, I also have some geography cards that zoom in on a country on the world map, for the front side.
Interesting. My projects would benefit from those more convenient clones into closure captures. The other point where Rc is uglier than, say, Swift, is the explicit `.borrow()` and `.borrow_mut()` everywhere. I wonder if that could also be made more convenient/high-level without sacrificing the control over high performance (like C++) that got me to use Rust in the first place.
Some Clojure fans once told me they thought datalog was better than SQL and it was a shame that the relational DBs all used SQL. I never dug into it enough to find out why they thought that way.
Been trying Rust for some months now. The IDE experience is so much nicer I'm probably sticking with it, but the restrictions on how I write code are still grating on me. I need to learn the language better, but now I still feel like I wanted something more like C++ 2.0 without as much paradigm shift.
I just used Skype the other day. I still find it useful for certain things. Is it that these companies can't maintain a piece of software unless they see a way for it to grow and dominate the world?
Yup. They could have security by allowing the user to see and control the sandboxing that the operating system imposes on the apps. The app store is not required, but they act like it is.
Is Mojo interactive like Python? I mean will it work well with notebook style programming? I've been looking for something that works well in that interactive mode (like Python) but also has types (like, say, Swift). Swift playgrounds have always been buggy as hell for me.
Yes, my short post may sound dismissive, but I work in tech and I'm aware that our industry has lots of legitimate creativity and intellectual property. Of course we also have hype, marketing, BS, and herd stampedes. Some aspects of GPU/parallel design are commonly understood and other companies make such chips. So I guess I was just wondering if Nvidia had a secret sauce, are they ahead of others, and if so by what measure? I work more in software, and I'm not in a position now to evaluate their hardware on the merits.
What is Nvidia's gold mine? They don't make their own chips, right? Doesn't that mean that other companies can quickly catch up, if they are even behind?
I've haven't looked into how these new AI products are implemented. Can someone give a ballpark estimate on the current costs if someone wanted to build their own, say:
1. LLM that talks like ChatGPT
2. Image generator that makes realistic portraits from verbal descriptions.
Are the costs in the data acquisition, human training input, training CPU/GPU hours, hardware, or ??
I agree with his approach but I'm on macOS so I don't think I can even use this currently. Anyone know if he has a plan to get this out so everyone can use it? It's not like the authors of Clang are going to implement this. Is he trying to get the C++ committee to standardize this idea? Or will he make a commercial product? If it were cross-platform I would pay for it.
I want to do cross platform native C++ dev. Maybe I should switch to Microsoft-land. I've been using a MacBook for years. I see Visual Studio docs talking about C++ cross-platform mobile (iOS, Android), but nothing about desktop (eg, Linux, macOS).
I suspect Visual Studio on Windows works better than what I've been using – VS Code or Emacs with clangd, which sometimes runs amok, takes 20GB of RAM, and kills my laptop.
It's hard to say what I mean exactly, because I don't know what I will need to make my program fast, but I know I want the ability to adapt and control low level details. That would include memory layout and allocation, and skipping potential safety checks if I can prove my code works, beyond what the type system and compiler can prove.
I had some Swift code a while back. It was optimized, but when I rewrote it in C++ it got a lot faster. Something bad was happening that wasn't "visible in the code", as you said. The code was pretty complex algorithm and data structure stuff related to computational geometry and computer graphics. I suspect if I tried it in Rust I'd be fighting with the borrow checker and that is not appealing.
I still can't use C++20 modules with a macOS app (Clang). I tried, and compile times balloon 10-30x on some files.
Maybe I should give up and try Rust. Does Rust give you _maximum_ control over performance the way C and C++ do? I need that and that's I why I used C++ in the first place.