What I would like to see is more documentation on the "why not" that summarizes why other languages and proposals are not sufficient. For example, Safe C++ proposal[1] appears to satisfy all requirements, but I can't find any reference to it.
The reason the Safe C++ proposal wasn't mentioned is that it came years later. =] I'll see if it makes sense for us to update that section a bit, this probably isn't the only thing that we should refresh a bit to reflect the last few years of developments.
FWIW, the biggest challenge with Safe C++ is that WG21 rejected[1] that direction. And it was developed without building a governance model or way to evolve outside of WG21, and so doesn't seem to have a credible path forward.
[1]: FWIW, some members of WG21 don't agree with this characterizationp, but both the author's impression and the practical effect was to reject the direction.
To your footnote, this has been a constant refrain from WG21. One of the biggest achievements from yourself and many others was getting WG21 to explicitly reject P2137 the "Goals and priorities" paper rather than dithering and refusing to commit as happened for "Safe C++" and for the ABI paper.
I believe that getting WG21 to actually say "No" was very useful to have non-technical leadership people understand that C++ can't be the solution they need.
Did Safe C++ ever have a full, correct, fully compliant, reference implementation, or was there only (closed-source) Circle as some kind of reference implementation? Circle, as far as I know, is closed-source.
> Did Safe C++ ever have a full, correct, fully compliant, reference implementation, or was there only (closed-source) Circle as some kind of reference implementation?
Technically speaking the clauses on either side of the "or" aren't mutually exclusive. You can have a "full, correct, fully compliant, reference implementation" that is also a closed-source implementation!
Well, unless the implication that Circle isn't "full, correct, [and] fully compliant", in which case I feel I should ask "with respect to what?" and "why do you need those requirements?"
But Safe C++ and Circle are different languages, right? And Circle is not the same as the Safe C++ proposal that was submitted, right? There are presumably differences between them, and I do not know what those differences are, and I do not know if those differences were documented somewhere. I cannot find any occurrences of "reference implementation" in the Safe C++ draft.
> But Safe C++ and Circle are different languages, right?
Eh, bit of a mixed bag, I think, depending on the context in which the words are used. "Circle" can refer to the compiler/toolchain or the set of C++ extensions the compiler implements, whereas Safe C++ is either the proposal or the extensions the proposal describe. As a result, you can say that you can compile Safe C++ using Circle, and you can also describe Safe C++ as a subset of the Circle extensions. I wouldn't exactly describe the lines as well-defined, for what it's worth.
> There are presumably differences between them, and I do not know what those differences are, and I do not know if those differences were documented somewhere.
They're sort of documented indirectly, as far as I can tell. Compare the features in the Safe C++ proposal and the features described in the Circle readme [0]. That'll get you an approximation at least, albeit somewhat shaded by the old docs (understandable given the one-man show).
> I cannot find any occurrences of "reference implementation" in the Safe C++ draft.
The exact words "reference implementation" may not show up, but I think this bit qualifies (emphasis added):
> Everything in this proposal took about 18 months to design and implement in Circle.
If they're the same language, then I think it's a fair objection that it's closed-source, as some people might find using a closed-source compiler to be unsuitable as a replacement for the existing open source C++ ones. If it's not the same language, then it's not clear that Safe C++ actually exists today, so it also seems fair that people might be interested in alternatives that they expect might be available sooner.
I don't think the objection in the first sentence makes sense because I don't think replacing the existing C++ compilers was ever in the cards. If anything, the fact that the Safe C++ proposal has a section titled "Implementation Guidance" seems to point to precisely the opposite - that the intent was for existing C++ compilers to be updated to add the new features, not that Circle was to replace them.
I'm not sure about the second sentence either? Circle (supposedly?) implements everything in the Safe C++ proposal, so in that respect Safe C++ exists. Alternatively, you can say Safe C++ doesn't exist because major compilers don't implement it, but that's kind of the point of the Safe C++ proposal (and many (most?) other C++ language proposals, for that matter) - it's describing new features that don't currently exist but might be worth adding to the standard.
> people might be interested in alternatives that they expect might be available sooner.
This is also a bit funny because this was one of the more contentious points of debate in the Safe C++ vs. profiles discussion, and the impression I got is that between the two Safe C++ was generally considered to be closer to "might be available sooner" than profiles.
But standardization also matters for avoiding vendor lock-in, right?
Like, Python and Javascript both have many "implementations", and those are some of the most popular languages. Python does not have an ISO specification. But Javascript does have an Ecma standard, ECMAScript.
But this doesn't seem to account for other shape concerns. The bit I am most interested in is whether this mapper can avoid barre chords where possible.
Related, I think there should also be an option to take capo into account.
There's quite a bit more involved in the scoring, such as string hopping, runs on the same string, etc. I invite you to run --help and look at the mapper config tunables. Ideas for improvement are welcome.
Were there any bots that participated in One Million Chessboards? I remember people building some automation around One Million Checkboxes to do some crazy animation stuff, I wonder if that was attempted with One Million Chessboards.
Also, if One Million Chessboards started with some bots making moves, that could solve the cold-start problem mentioned under "a lack of awe", although I can also see how existence of bots might be a deterrent for some people.
In a similar spirit, I knew someone who claimed to not pay for parking permits at our university, and just parked wherever he liked. The parking permits were $100+ per month and the parking fines were ~$300 per citation, so if he gets caught less than once per quarter, he would come out ahead.
He tells me later that it didn't quite work out in terms of saving money, but because he sometimes parked in spots that he could not get permits for, it actually saved time.
Up until recently, fares for the LRT system in my city were enforced by a random check by transit police, typically by having an officer board trains and check riders' tickets at random times during random days and handing out fines to fare evaders who they caught.
Between around mid-2006 and the end of 2008 I rode the train to work downtown every day. The trains were so crowded during rush hour that it was impossible for Transit police to board trains to check fares, and even outside rush hour, fare checks were very occasional. A monthly pass at the time was around $75 and a fine for fare evasion was around $200 (the first violation was less than $200, and I think it increased until a cap of something like $250 for repeat offenders). I'd worked it out that if I was caught without paying a fare less than once every three months, it would be cheaper to just pay the fine if/when I got caught rather than buy a pass. So I didn't buy a pass and decided to see how long it would take to actually get caught.
The answer was about 18 months. Got a $170 fine. Which I then forgot about and never actually paid. The statute of limitations on that fine has long since expired.
You're lucky with that system of fine capping. I had the same mentality with the very expensive trains here, probably saved upwards of 2-3000£ until I got caught. Problem is they actually prosecute you in the courts for repeat offenders so I can no longer risk it.
I was looking for more details on who is considered in-scope, e.g. if the determination is decided at account creation time or at content access time. Especially considering how the AT protocol is a decentralized protocol that is not exclusive to a single region, it's not obvious how the enforcement will work.
Enforcement occurs at the application level. You can think of applications as analogous to search engines. They're aggregating view layers (which is why they're called AppViews). They are largely where moderation or regulatory requirements are enforced.
https://www.ioccc.org/2000/natori/index.html
https://github.com/ioccc-src/winner/blob/master/2000/natori/...
It's interesting how the same 2551443 bitmask appears in the time calculation for both.
reply