Skip Navigation

Posts
8
Comments
1827
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • hey no you can't logic your way out of this! i wanted an argument!

  • i couldn't actually find any of that in spidermonkey. i was looking in js/vm/arrayobject and its parents, didn't see any others.

  • i was thinking between the linked list and the transistors :)

    also, i mean... what you might call an array i might call a vector. js arrays allow elements of different types, so they are by definition not arrays in the traditional sense. them being chars internally does make sense in a gross way.

  • skipped a few steps there i think.

    anyway, good question. led me to some cursed code.

    the ArrayObject in spidermonkey is an interface to either a TypedArrayObject or a SharedArrayObject. those both have an inner ArrayBuffer object, which is a view into ArrayBufferObjectMaybeShared, which contains a refcounted vector of uint8 pointers, regardless of the datatype. soooo all arrays in javascript are... strings?

  • oh no the thing that everyone said would happen happened? who could have foreseen this?!

  • it also states in section 6.7.7 ("type names") that

    If the pointer operand points to an element of an array object, and the array is large enough, the result points to an element offset from the original element such that the difference of the subscripts of the resulting and original array elements equals the integer expression.

    note also that your example is the only occurrence of the word "index" in the entire document that isn't just referring to the actual index at the end.

  • javascript doesn't have arrays. the backing data structure is a doubly-linked list.

  • arrays don't have indices. lists have indices. arrays have offsets.

  • i've seen people do that with vw beetles. it's cute.

  • they have previously argued that llm output is transformative itself, but that's been struck down. i'm not sure what the next avenue they will take is but they will definitely take it.

  • so they would have to argue what counts as a transformative work of plagiarism. how much of a stolen painting you have to paint over before it's no longer stolen.

  • it's an interesting discussion for the sake of understanding how people read. like, when i read "shadows like wings", i see a cloak of darkness surrounding the beast. and when those "wings" are spread "wall to wall" in an enormous cavern, i see the beast magically snuffing out all light.

  • took what

  • probably the firehose is easier to work with

  • yeah but git already had those features (well, not discoverability i guess) in its email functionality, it just needs a better ux.

  • i still don't understand what it does. it seems to replicate git's existing distributed patching capabilities using another protocol, tying it to social media profiles instead of crypto keys?

  • there's another shouting match in the comments about this already, and i'm of the opinion that he establishes the wings as a simile earlier with "shadows like wings". so i agree that it's not ambiguous but in the other direction.

  • ferrules are cheap, my dude.