I think what makes reduce less popular is that it takes two lambdas:
- a slightly awkward one that takes a partial result and the next value to produce a new partial result
- one that maps the final partial result to the result
Also, in many languages, when reading the code, you have to skip initialization of the partial result, read the lambda, and then jump back to make sense of the initial values
I think something like awk’s syntax, with BEGIN and END blocks would improve on that. Example of a first go at such syntax (needs work):
Items.BEGIN
min = ∞
max = -∞
sum = 0
n = 0
ITER
min = Min(min,_)
max = Max(max,_)
n += 1
sum += _
RETURN
average = sum / n
(min, max, average)
Advantages:
- items in the partial results have names, making them easier to understand
- result also is easier to understand
Price paid is wordiness, and you cannot simply write a function name for either of the lambdas.
However, I think the latter only is useful in case the partial result is the final result. There, you can keep
Shapr is probably a decent candidate for this, though maybe in a few years. It feels like they are the Pixelmator to Autodesk's Photoshop (Fusion). Though I don't like that I have to "Contact Sales" to be able to save my models on-prem, give me a goddamn break.
FTA: “The black card being brandished will be the final part of a three-step process. In the first instance, the referee will temporarily suspend the match and ask coaches to speak directly to its team’s supporters and parents, while an announcement will also be communicated to supporters should a public address system be available.”
So, that’s exactly what step one of this is: a signal to the crowd “behave yourself/make the bad actors behave themselves”.
“Design errors and mistakes in a microprocessor's hardwired logic may also be documented and described as errata. One well-publicized example is Intel's "FDIV" erratum in early Pentium processors, known as the Pentium FDIV bug. This gave incorrect answers to a floating-point division instruction (FDIV) for a small set of numbers, due to an incorrect lookup table inside the Pentium chip.
Similarly, design errors in peripheral devices, such as disk controllers and video display units, can result in abnormal operation under certain conditions.”
The rest of the Wikipedia page discusses errata as the documents issued to describe the errors, not the errors themselves.
The section you’ve linked is… a bit weirdly written. I don’t think they meant to suggest an alternative definition there. For example the first sentence could reasonably be read as saying the bugs are being “described as errata” but I think the more likely reading (and the one that is compatible with the rest of the article) is that they were trying to say that the process of documenting and describing the bug is what’s being done “as errata.”
> However, this will certify only the original image. I think the missing part of this is additional layers of certification which allow some image editing (e.g., rotating, contrast, etc.) yet clearly document that the image was modified and link to the original image ID. Kind of like a signed git log.
That’s not necessarily missing. For photography competitions, what matters is that people send original photos; for press photos, you don’t need a digital link between what’s published and the original, either. What matters is that papers, when questioned, can produce the original of a photo they published. Then, humans can determine whether editing changed the story.
> When Chrome 1.0 came out in 2008, it only ran on Windows, and it couldn't do basic things like print or export to PDF, didn't have any accessibility, didn't work in RTL languages, and didn't have any graphics acceleration, among other limitations.
It also was reusing the WebKit browser engine, work on which started in the 20th century (as KHTML)
As to Shopify needing zillion of engineers: does their backend query seller APIs? If so, I expect many of their engineers work on keeping that working.
- a slightly awkward one that takes a partial result and the next value to produce a new partial result
- one that maps the final partial result to the result
Also, in many languages, when reading the code, you have to skip initialization of the partial result, read the lambda, and then jump back to make sense of the initial values
I think something like awk’s syntax, with BEGIN and END blocks would improve on that. Example of a first go at such syntax (needs work):
Advantages:- items in the partial results have names, making them easier to understand
- result also is easier to understand
Price paid is wordiness, and you cannot simply write a function name for either of the lambdas.
However, I think the latter only is useful in case the partial result is the final result. There, you can keep
if you want to.reply