Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more Tichy's comments login

I kind of gave up on it when I realized how complicated it is to sort a list. Hopefully they'll improve that in future versions.

Still could see myself using it for specific use cases.

But for the future I'd wish for something cooler to win :-)

Edit: check out the sort module and decide for yourself http://golang.org/pkg/sort/

It has some interesting, if confusing, properties. But why not just let me write

list.sort(function(a,b){ return 1, 0 or -1...}) like JavaScript does?

While the examples in the sort module are perhaps more generic than necessary (hence the interesting but confusing properties), any sort still requires the definition of 3 functions, and they can't be defined inline (on the fly) either, afaik.


How is it complicated to sort a list? The only challenge is to provide a corresponding swap function for your list (or for any ordinal "collection" you need), like in this example for arrays, when it is trivial:

func (s Organs) Swap(i, j int) { s[i], s[j] = s[j], s[i] }

http://golang.org/pkg/sort/#example_Interface

Also note two things:

- This is the efficient and type safe way to handle polymorphism in Go

- The standard packages documentation is very nice with live, runnable examples


But you also have to implement Len() and Less(), don't you?

Maybe you can create a better way, but it is not implemented in the sort package by default.

Also I suppose you need to "convert" your list to some other type with the said functions provided (dervied from the standard go lists, forgot the name). Maybe that is a standard go mechanism, but it still amounts to more lines of code.

Maybe complicated is the wrong word, longwinded might be better?


Can you ask them to pay you sufficiently?


By any means necessary? So they'd murder to control the source?


Do you own a building? Or may I perhaps defecate your web site, for the sake of art?


You'd have to eat it first, and servers can be crunchy.


Well, it would be for the sake of art. You'd be surprised by the kind of things people do for art.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Foundation_Burn_a_Million_Qui...

Extract: Initially The KLF's earnings were to be distributed by way of a fund for struggling artists managed by the K Foundation, Drummond and Cauty's new post-KLF art project, but, said Drummond, "We realised that struggling artists are meant to struggle, that's the whole point."[12] Instead the duo decided to create art with the money.


What are you talking about?

I’m talking about definitions and the argument about definitions that’s happening here. Arguing about definitions is foolish, it’s point- and meaningless. Who cares what vandalism is? The important thing is how one views a certain act, not how one defines vandalism. That only clouds the issue.

Also, I find people who think there are absolutes when it comes to this issue extremely funny.


I don't think arguing about definitions is pointless, although it often turns out that way.

Take, for example, the classic "if a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". Resolving this question comes down to seeing that it depends on how sound is defined: pressure waves in the air or a neural state change related to those waves hitting an ear.

Once we see that a words (like "sound") has several definitions it allows us to see the world more clearly. Perhaps we invent new words for the sub-concepts that are generated.


That tree example perfectly illustrates why arguing about definitions is pointless. There is no reason at all to ever really disagree about definitions (except maybe for convenience).

However you define sound, the material facts of the situation are unchanged. You do not change anything in reality by defining it differently, you are merely changing something in your brain, i.e. how sound is represented inside it. That is also why the tree question is anything but deep. It’s extremely straightforward, there is no mystery, it’s only our brains screwing up (in the way it represents things).

Therefore, if it seems like some word is differently defined by different people all that has to be done is that everyone has to make clear what their definition is, that’s all. There is no point arguing about it, there isn’t even much point in trying to come to an agreement (except convenience).

If everyone know everyone else’s definition of something it’s perfectly possible to talk about it, even if all individual definitions are contradictory, it would just be hard to keep track of everything.


presumably if you want to make a law about it, you have to define it somehow. What solution do you propose?


Lucky for me, I guess. I do not want to make a law about it.


One hopes you'll use the bit bucket.


Hm, maybe if I ever have to hire somebody I'll challenge them to a Corewar duel :-)

Before the internet my friends and I sometimes used to get to together, everybody got some time to write a Corewar warrior on paper, and then we'd watch the tournament together. It was great fun.


If he knows all there is to know about computers, perhaps he can tell us whether P = NP.


Most computer scientists feel that P != NP and it's just a matter of figuring out a way to prove it.


Then it's a good thing computer science isn't driven by feelings.


You'd be surprised by how much of it (mathematics) is. You obviously can't prove anything with gut feeling, but you can sure find things to prove with it.


It is possible for something to be unknown and still boring, not "magical" or "intriguing".


People have personal preferences, I suppose. But the approach to kill the magic seems weird - I'd expect things to become more magical the more I learn about them.


You might want to read up on Ponzi schemes again. I don't see a connection with declining production rates of a product.


I've used floppy disks and tape recorders, but I'm a bit embarrassed that I never used punch cards.


But why does a fixed supply make it deflationary? What happens when all BTC have been mined, will the price still go up all the time?

I guess it could go up if the Dollar goes down at the same time. The actual price is staying the same, but the Dollar is worth less, so it takes more to buy X. Not sure why that would be bad.

Also I suspect banks will create virtual bitcoin, as they do with money (lending BTC that they borrowed). Perhaps that will affect the price as well.


Well, if you assume economic growth, a fixed number of counting tokens will have to represent larger values over time.

The real trick is to read 'deflationary' as 'will create deflationary pressure', not as 'will inevitably cause deflation at every moment in time'.


You mean, assuming there was only one Bitcoin: if a VW Beetle costs 1 BTC this year, and next year a Porsche is published (growing the economy by replacing cars with better cars), the Porsche would also have to cost 1 BTC because there isn't more than 1 BTC?

That seems incorrect. While impractical, there might be other solutions, for example the Porsche could cost 1 BTC+ 1 Carrot, or maybe it could cost 2 BTC anyway. The buyer just wouldn't be able to pay in one go.


Marginal effects don't really reduce well to narrow examples like that.

What I mean is that if you assume a healthy trade in something of limited abundance, you should be prepared for demand to drive up the value of that thing. It might not, but given the simple dynamics of supply and demand (microeconomics isn't really controversial), it is prudent to be aware of the possibility.

(I do sort of assume that people are mostly using bitcoins to complete transactions and speculate, I don't assume there is a healthy trade in them)


That's the rational way to see it. Then again, what would you invest in at all thinking like that?


Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: