Shreevatsa

Love it. That hijacker one is one of the excerpts in the linked post: https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/the-book-of-heroic-failure… :)

You missed 13/4 = 3.25, 16/5 = 3.2, 19/6 = 3.16667, 179/57 = 3.14035, 201/64, 223/71, 245/78, 267/85, 289/92, 333/106, 52163/16604 https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/not-all-best-rational-appr…

Wow, so disagreeing with the point of this article immediately provokes a typed-out condescending sigh from you? That's worth a sigh more than anything. Furthermore, I was a mathematics person first, and got into computer science later, so I'm not a "CS person" insisting on calling it an abuse of notation. I have two points: Firstly, although the article does a good job making the point that there's no reason to get on programming languages' case for using formalized, ad hoc syntax, it does a terrible job of backing up it's actual title. The bottom line is the equals sign is very closely associated with the concept of RST equivalence in mathematics, to the point where a specificity such as the symbol for the isomorphism (which, ironically, he used as a counterexample) is abstracted away, because isomorphism is an RST relation. If two things are isomorphic, they are, in some sense, the same (or equal), so use of an equals sign is natural. Secondly, if you had read the first source you posted, maybe you wouldn't have claimed programmers/CS people were the ones pedantically insisting on calling it an abuse of notation since, on page 6, Bruijin writes, "The trouble is, of course, due to abusing the equality sign =."[1] Furthermore, after defining the parameters around the use of the O-symbol, he also writes, on page 7, "It is obvious that the sign = is really the wrong sign for such relations, because it suggests symmetry, and there is no such symmetry."[1] 1.…

What I do is, I'm always responding to output N while the AI is working on prompt N+1. So we are both always responding to each other's question/answer before last. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCMiyXM-1_U https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/mastermind/

I found this blog post really helpful in explaining the difference: https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/zshbash-startup-files-load… It references this blog post: https://meta.ath0.com/2007/10/23/cleaning-up-bash-customizations/

Sounds reasonable, source: http://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-optimization-is-t… Let me fix it.

> Interestingly, the results of this optimization are well-described by Hoare's Dictum, often mistakenly attributed to Donald Knuth, which states More interestingly, it is not clear at all that it's Hoares. [0] has a nice overview, and they conclude that it is indeed Knuths. [0]: https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-optimization-is-…

This comes up quite a bit in functional languages in the ML family (which all have ADTs like rust). Bob Harper's blog had a post about this called "boolean blindness" (which seems to be locked now?), but you can find a summary of it here: https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2015/01/31/boolean-blindness/

> Pike's rules 1 and 2 restate Tony Hoare's famous maxim "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." That quote is from Knuth, not Hoare. https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-optimization-is-…

I found this link when I got curious about that [1]. [1]https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/zshbash-startup-files-load…

Some people, when confronted with a problem, think “I know, I’ll quote Jamie Zawinski.” Now they have two problems. Attributed to Mark Pilgrim in a comment at http://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/who-said-that/

I kind of understand why you'd think it's a massively complicated query. You are probably thinking the types of joins on two tables on random columns with weird conditions which go into full table scan. I am talking about queries/joins between tables that have foreign keys between them, like client/project/task/comment. I bet 90% of graphql schemas expose those kinds of relations between types. For those type of relations (with FK) i can generate a single query that is as fast as it can be (certainly faster then dataloader) and as far as i've tested (a few millions of rows in tables, 3-7 levels in a query) i didn't leave the fast territory :) Of course there might be edge cases ... About premature optimisations. Everyone likes to quote that, but never the full one which is "We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil." https://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/2008/05/16/premature-optimization-is-… The paper where it was published was about using goto to optimize loops and such small things, it was never "targeted" at algorithms and architecture. As i think i mentioned here above, i was getting 10X throughput with joins compared to dataloader and i would not call that premature.