Joost de Vries

1.1K posts

Joost de Vries banner
Joost de Vries

Joost de Vries

@jouke

Developer interested in functional programming, Kotlin, Scala, Typescript, reactive programming, Rx. And singing. find me on bsky

Utrecht, NL Katılım Mart 2007
145 Takip Edilen120 Takipçiler
Joost de Vries retweetledi
Guardian Tech
Guardian Tech@guardiantech·
As an ex-Twitter boss, I have a way to grab Elon Musk’s attention. If he keeps stirring unrest, get an arrest warrant | Bruce Daisley theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
English
168
234
687
326.1K
Joost de Vries retweetledi
Jon Erlichman
Jon Erlichman@JonErlichman·
“There is a 50-50 chance AI will get more intelligent than humans in the next 20 years. We’ve never had to deal with things more intelligent than us. And we should be very uncertain about what it will look like.” ~ Geoffrey Hinton
English
134
504
1.4K
291.7K
Joost de Vries
Joost de Vries@jouke·
@adamwarski @alexelcu @lukasz_bialy Maybe have a look at Lucas Rytz' phd thesis. It delved into the question of checked exception ergonomics. I remember something like: with checked exceptions the default is 'no exceptions'. But yeah: ergonomics will make or break capability based programming a la future scala
English
1
0
2
36
Adam Warski
Adam Warski@adamwarski·
Yes, exactly, with same benefits as `using Async` has over `throws InterruptedException`. Checked exceptions are considered broken, so now comes the question, aren't then capabilities broken the same way? The hypothesis would be that no: checked exceptions are broke because they don't play well with lambdas, and require any callers of lambdas to be aware of any checked exceptions that might be thrown. With capabilities, we don't have this problem. However, that's only one theory of why checked exceptions are bad, there are many others as well ;)
English
1
0
2
129
André Staltz
André Staltz@andrestaltz·
I'd like to see a project management system based on a chain of "why"s. That is, instead of just stating tasks to be done, inform the reason for a task, plus the reason for that reason, etc. Might shed a lot of light on what matters and what doesn't.
English
4
1
21
2.3K
Joost de Vries
Joost de Vries@jouke·
@headinthebox Maybe human hallucinations are mispredictions as well. So then the term would be fitting after all.
English
1
0
1
65
Erik Meijer
Erik Meijer@headinthebox·
Shouldn't we call "hallucinations" simply "mispredictions". The former implies perception which is not there in a model, whereas the latter precisely describes what is going on mechanically.
English
18
10
77
8.6K
Joost de Vries
Joost de Vries@jouke·
@_JamesWard @epascarello Have you considered Deno + Typescript instead? I find it very productive. Works out of the box most often. Also has top level await :-)
English
0
0
1
169
James Ward
James Ward@JamesWard·
I think the biggest source of pain comes from wishy-washy and changing foundations. Example: I wanted top level await, much time on StackOverflow with many out-of-date and incomplete or unhelpful answers, converted to mjs, which broke Jest, back into the StackOverflow quagmire, then had to figure out different exports & imports, again into StackOverflow morass, eventually figured it all out. It is really hard to evolve something as legacy as JS because it isn't just the tech, it's the ecosystem that has to move. Java certainly has some of these same challenges but have tackled them with much more care and with more solid foundations.
English
2
0
2
308
James Ward
James Ward@JamesWard·
Been spending time in the JavaScript / Node pain cave lately to remind myself how good I have it in the JVM ecosystem.
English
16
12
136
17.5K
Joost de Vries
Joost de Vries@jouke·
“You need to imagine something that is more intelligent than us by the same degree that we are more intelligent than a frog. It’s all very well to say: ‘Well, don’t connect them to the internet,’ but as long as they’re talking to us, they can make us do things.”
English
1
0
1
116
Dave Farley
Dave Farley@davefarley77·
What tech-related product/service did you think was going to be a hit, but instead failed terribly? 😂
English
57
1
22
0