> Seems strange to express displeasure with a corporate policy about a website by being disrespectful to unrelated individuals.
What are you even going on about? Whom have I disrespected?
Allow me to repeat myself: It’s one thing restrict offensive language but it’s a whole different beast to mandate specific language.
If, e.g., you tell me to not refer to a certain group of folks using a particular racially offensive term, that’s fine and pretty reasonable, but if you tell me that I must refer to a certain group of folks using a term that you or they chose simply because you or they said so, as far as I’m concerned, we’re slowly walking ourselves into a dictatorship. For the first option, I can simply not do anything and avoid being a “bad” person, but for the second option, I’m implicitly a “bad” person if I don’t explicitly do as told (in this case, aka, ordered).
There’s no way I could ever accept that. Nope. No way.
> Q9: Do I have to use pronouns I’m unfamiliar or uncomfortable with (e.g., neopronouns like xe, zir, ne... )?
>
> Yes, if those are stated by the individual.
Yikes.
I’m 100% in support of all gender identities, sexual orientations, races, etc., and I’ll fight for everyone’s rights and well-being, but this is insanity.
It’s one thing restrict offensive language but it’s a whole different beast to mandate specific language.
> The fact that a language compiles down to C doesn't mean it compiles down to efficient C.
Where do you see me claiming otherwise?
> At the simplest level, the compiled code could add a bunch of unnecessary function calls and pointers and other forms of indirection that wouldn't be present in hand-written C.
Again, why are you telling me this? Please quote where I claimed otherwise.
> But for a more extreme example, you could also compile an interpreter or VM to C, and it would still be much slower than the equivalent hand-written C code.
The more that I read your response, the more that it seems that you’re debating yourself, because I’m not sure why you’re telling me this. You started your response by telling me that I’m “missing the point” when, in reality, you seem to have not even read my point. My main point was the following:
> If the code from which the resulting machine code is compiled is C, then it’s objectively “as fast as C” […] your resulting program will perform as fast as a C compiler [worth its salt] can get you.
This is true. I made no claims re efficiency; “as fast as C” and “as fast as efficient hand-written C” aren’t interchangeable claims. Forgive me for not assuming efficiency, because I’ve seen a good amount of inefficient hand-written C code in my years.
> This is why "as fast as C" typically refers to normal, hand-written C code—even though there is no formal definition for what "normal C" looks like, it's still a useful description.
Says who though? I’m professionally experienced in C, and as is very clear by this discussion, it’s down to individual interpretations.
> "As fast as C" would commonly be interpreted as "a program written in it will be as fast as a well-written C equivalent"
That’s your interpretation, which is fine, but the objective meaning stands. Even the idea of “well-written C” is, in my experience, fairly subjective amongst C programmers.
I’m not sure that I understand your argument. If the code from which the resulting machine code is compiled is C, then it’s objectively “as fast as C” … because, at the end of the day, it actually is C. Being “as fast as C” means that your resulting program will perform as fast as a C compiler [worth its salt] can get you.
Your comparison to machine code (or human readable assembly code) is less useful in that such a statement means very little until one knows how said machine code is being produced (e.g., manually, from a IR, etc.).
Those are valid questions when evaluating an unknown technology. How could anyone consider this trolling? Not to digress but have we become too sensitive?
On the contrary, I feel that the stylistic [and sometimes semantic] separation of primitive and boxed types in languages (e.g., `byte` VS `Byte` in Java) improves the developer experience, in that I can very quickly dissect the type of value that I’m dealing with when reading the code.
This is part of the reason why I prefer to never let any services/apps/etc. save my bank/card details. If there’s not an option to save the card details that I can uncheck, 9x out of 10, I reconsider the transaction.
The assumption here though is that the services/apps/etc. that do provide the option actually respect it; in other words, unless you use fake/virtual card details (not entirely reliable, in my experience), you can’t be 100% sure that you’re safe either way, which sucks.
Yes, that’s a significant catch, but this is some good work nonetheless.
That said, I’d hope that someone using a C library like this wouldn’t just start using it without understanding the potentially non-trivial consequences/side-effects of that decision.
Whoever you are, seriously, I love you for this commentary. Thank you.
> Set yourself free, and cast off the 24/7 toxic work culture of SV that's keen on producing useless shit for problems no one has. Don't let yourself be consumed by the entropy emamanting from startup land. You don't have much time on Earth. Don't give it to unworthy efforts and assholes.
Bingo. Environments like that seem to be the new “wave” now. I can’t stand them! Maybe it’s just me but I don’t understand how anyone can get any work done in those settings.
Many a time, I’ve hired software engineers without degrees over software engineers with Ivy League or top-10 school CS degrees, and I haven’t regretted it even once.
Nowadays, I don’t even put education “requirements” in job descriptions, and even if you mention your school during an interview, I don’t really care for it, to be quite honest. At the end of the day, our real technical/programming interview (no whiteboard nonsense) will tell me the things that I need to know about your technical abilities.
I remember interviewing one candidate with a CS degree from RIT, and I honestly spent a good portion of the interview genuinely feeling like this poor individual just flushed the tuition $ down the toilet, because he was just failing the interview miserably! Funny thing is, he knew a lot of theory, but when it came time to produce, it didn’t work out too well for him. (He could use whatever set-up that he preferred, Google usage was obviously allowed, he was given space to work without disruption at various points, and most importantly, the problem was a legitimate problem that we had to solve at the company.)
All of this to say: Just apply! If you have the skills and a company doesn’t give you a chance because of a stupid degree requirement, they aren’t a good fit for you and don’t deserve you! Cross them off of your list, move on, and apply to another company.
What are you even going on about? Whom have I disrespected?
Allow me to repeat myself: It’s one thing restrict offensive language but it’s a whole different beast to mandate specific language.
If, e.g., you tell me to not refer to a certain group of folks using a particular racially offensive term, that’s fine and pretty reasonable, but if you tell me that I must refer to a certain group of folks using a term that you or they chose simply because you or they said so, as far as I’m concerned, we’re slowly walking ourselves into a dictatorship. For the first option, I can simply not do anything and avoid being a “bad” person, but for the second option, I’m implicitly a “bad” person if I don’t explicitly do as told (in this case, aka, ordered).
There’s no way I could ever accept that. Nope. No way.