etiene
Thanks!
> is there a way for users to report/flag bad suggestions?
For the word hints there isn't a way yet, but this is a great point, I should add it in the future! For the sentence examples, it depends on what you mean with "bad". There's a "..." pop-up menu with an option to flag the example as incorrect or report it (for being inappropriate, abusive etc).
edit: For both cases, it is also possible to shuffle / fetch another suggestion.
These situations are usually framed on how it bothers us, as outsiders to these companies. We tend to put outselves only in the shoes of the pizza consumers, neither the evil entity, nor the pizza maker. But these companies have workers, who put their labor into some product, only then to see that product in the hands of entities that go directly against their core values and existence. I find very understandable that they are mad. Shouldn't we also question these problems from this perspective?
When there are many employees uncomfortable with things like this, maybe it's not a necessity, but I still think it's very nice for outsiders to support them.
However that was in the case where the product is something innocuous, like pizza. Because you know, it might also be case that the product is actually enabling or helping evil to be evil. Such as "being part of the critical toolkit to conduct invasive surveillance". So getting mad could be even more substantiated in those cases.
Either way, the whole question of dealing with ethics from the efficiency perspectice is one that bothers me and a whole discussion in itself.
Here is a quick link to Pallene's github repo as well, since it's a bit hidden in the paper: https://github.com/pallene-lang/pallene
Given that, looking for jobs sucks, a couple of rejections can easily make people feel really down. So after some failed attempts I know it's hard to keep the mindset that you are also interviewing the companies, but do try to keep in mind that you deserve a good work environment!
Lua 5.4.0 (work1) now available
The changes between Lua versions are nothing like the abysmal difference between python 2 and python 3. Not only 5.1 code is very likely to run on 5.3 and JIT without issues, if there are ever any issues they are always very minor and solvable with requiring a simple compat library.
As someone who has done a lot of Lua and Javascript, I had always had the feeling that coding in Lua feels better by orders of magnitude. It's a way more consistent language.
But congrats on the hard work! I've been planning to try it out for a while now and the amount of resources and docs is great.
I've been part of some online tech communities for women, but I found they were too US-centric and it was difficult for me to obtain value from it, hoping Leap will be different
There's a difference between "language" and "language implementation". With this you have a new language implementation, but not a new language per se.
Furthermore, I think it could benefit from marketing as batteries for Lua, instead of a new thing Lua compatible. Your runtime would benefit from things like Lua's package manager (LuaRocks) and getting the existing Lua community to try this?
Source? AFAIK it does hold true. Last time I benchmarked those, LuaJIT was significantly faster, with PyPy almost being on pair with vanilla Lua, due to Python being a much more complex language and harder to optimise.
No, of course not. I think you are. You are clearly misinterpreting his words. I will repeat, (PUC)Lua is not compiled to machine code, but to an intermediate bytecode form. Those are completely different things, and what I said does not come in conflict at all with the quote you took from PiL, so I don't know what you are confronting me about.
I guess you misinterpreted my comment. I didn't imply there are no reasons to compare C and Ruby. I said the reason is important and the way you portray that, and the way you portray your results, changes things.
No, but again, I take paper results very seriously. Misleading results are bad for science, period. Here is an example of more rigorous research: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.00602.pdf
> If Lua wasn't included would you complain ?
Maybe I would, who knows. I did also mention in another comment it would be nice if Julia was there. It depends how relevant they are for the research being conducted. As a language used very often in microcontrollers, Lua is very relevant for energy efficiency research. I don't know anything about Forth, but I wouldn't just dismiss people saying it should be there with "then contribute forth algorithms to the benchmarks game yourself".
Secondly, why would you compare the performance of C and Ruby, for example? Ruby is bound to be slower for design reasons. Doing it to say "Look, C is fast!" doesn't mean anything. There are different reasons one would compare C and Rust, or C and Ruby. The way the results are displayed and what it tries to convey is very important.
If you're not making a baseline, or being very clear, etc. then it's just misleading to have a benchmark portraying Javascript as faster than Ruby, Python and Lua. Either you put those into their correct classifications clearly, or you compare it with LuaJIT, PyPy, Julia etc.
I happened to spot a problem on this one on the Lua part and also on some other parts concerning how they classify things, because it happens to be things I know more. I'm not going out of my way to look for problems in the rest of the paper because I'm not a reviewer and I have better things to do.
But if I was the one way conducting this academic research, then I would want the results not to be bogus. The difference here is this is not a blog post about some bullshit comparison someone is making. If that was the case, then alright, if public contributed algorithms failed to represent exactly what was being looked for, why not go for whatever is out there. I just expect a more rigorous procedure from academics.