I'm doing a project perhaps relevant to this. Talk of declarative schemas (or what you imply they offer) is very interesting and I'd like to know more but I can't find anything relevant (just magento and sqlalchemy). Indeed, searching for <<<"Declarative schemas" "sql">>> in google gets this very thread on the first results page.
Any links to clear, actionable and reasonably comprehensive examples of these would be most helpful. Obviously abstract statements of the required semantics are also needed, but I also need to see what actual code would look like.
Tree sitter is based on LR parsing (see 23:30 in above video) extended to GLR parsing (see 38:30).
I've had enough of fools on HN posting unverified crap to make themselves feel cool and knowledgeable (and don't kid yourself that you helped me find the right answer by posting the wrong one). Time I withdrew. Goodbye HN.
Yours is the toxic comment. Appeal to authority is fine if the authority is an authority and WB has proven his. Suggestions of intention to flatter and accusations of hero worship are pretty gross. @kingaillas's point is entirely valid IMO.
I have some idea what I'm talking about, see my post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25210523 and I don't kniow about why using a packrat over anything else. I pull something off the shelf, antlr for my latest project, then get on with it.
The parser is the most trivial side of things, if you consider that a key skill it comes across as being an issue from the 1970s, not today. Writing a RD by hand is not a big deal anyway as someone else said.
If your into optimising compilers you're focusing on a very odd area to criticise. I'd gave though more about dataflow using lattices or whatever, graph stuff etc.
So parsing aside, what are the 'relevant' skills you feel are missing?
(and what are 'Database Compilers'? Nearest I can think of that may fit are query optimisers)
> let's say your bank's website uses JavaScript, what do you do
Well mate, take a guess :) I do it on the phone only (and I don't mean smartphone). I've had a little exposure to bank's competence from the inside 20 years ago (large UK bank, mortgages), they couldn't find their own arse with a torch, arrows, diagrams and a PhD in arse-finding.
> 'll just rephrase things to something less offensive: you're not "hurting" yourself, you're limiting yourself, sometimes with drawbacks not everyone is able/willing to endure.
That's much more accurate. We can agree, however consider that that 'limiting [my]self' means limiting my exposure to ads, abuse of my CPU, tracking, most dark patterns, nag screens, malware and more. The tradeoff's very ok for me, and I've experience the web on both sides. Oh yes it's worth it! (for me).
> maybe I should try it with some Firefox extensions
So you're making fun of me although you haven't tried it. Yeah, okay.
> But I expect 95% of the web to break if I disable it
And you'll be wrong, it is much lower than that (except if you're talking about adverts failing to display, then I guess yes, in that respect it does).
I don't give a damn about other sites (and I don't browse intranet sites on my home machine -- if I'm in an office I use their office machine).
If they don't work I don't use them except in rare cases when I really need to in which case they get run in a VM.
> you're probably hurting yourself, too
That's deeply patronising from somebody who admits they haven't even tried doing what I do, nor has even asked why I and others do it (hint: it's for many of the reasons you described). It sounds like you're talking to a rather stupid child.
> Americans aren’t capable of dealing with a problem where their actions impact others more than themselves.
While it's true USA'ians are probably more individualistic than many other cultures and that may translate some way even to selfishness, the above quote is a gross, incorrect and offensive description, and I'm a brit.
> easy to tell if a type can have cycles or not at compile-time, you just need to check if it refers to itself
Certainly useful at times as I suppose it may be used to ensure you don't have cycles (I imagine that could be useful for resource management) but 'can have cycles' is definitely not 'does have cycles'. It's the latter that's important here.
I purposefully used the word 'efficient' in my original post. Of course you can find cycles many ways, but floyd's (or similar) are not acceptably fast and never can be in general.
Please open firefox to that page, leave it open for a few minutes and observe the memory. I suspect FX will bloat too.