awesome-falsehood VS papers-we-love

Billing. It always has to be the billing. For a list of all other edge cases, you have: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#readme

Falsehoods Programmers Believe in: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

Also, a list of other falsehood-programmers-believe collections: awesome-falsehood.

> I feel like there's a "Fallacies programmers believe about text" that should exist somewhere

I got you covered.

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#international...

http://garbled.benhamill.com/2017/04/18/falsehoods-programme...

https://jeremyhussell.blogspot.com/2017/11/falsehoods-progra...

https://wiesmann.codiferes.net/wordpress/archives/30296

There's an excellent GitHub repo that lists a lot of common falsehoods regarding names. I'm not sure how useful it'll be to OP, but the repo in general should probably have way more attention than it already does.

https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#human-identit...

A decent list for this about prices and currency https://gist.github.com/rgs/6509585 and the full list of other falsehoods https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

If you're interested in this sort of thing there's a whole bunch more: https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood

It's saddening to see the number of people who critique the idea of storing time as an unsigned integer by immediately responding that that means that times before 1970 cannot exist. This bespeaks of a continuing poor knowledge of the subject, despite all of the "falsehoods that programmers believe about" documentation that has grown up.

* https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood#dates-and-tim...

Microsoft, for one example, has been modelling times as a 64-bit unsigned 100-nanosecond count since 1601 (proleptic-Gregorian proleptic-UTC) for about 30 years, now.

* https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/minwinba...

Daniel J. Bernstein in the late 1990s chose a 0 point for an unsigned count so far back that it pre-dates most estimates of the point of the Big Bang.

* http://cr.yp.to/libtai/tai64.html

1970 is not the mandatory origin for every timescale. (Indeed, in the early years of Unix itself there wasn't even a stable origin for time.) It is not a valid reason for dismissing the idea of storing time as an unsigned integer.

It's also sad to note that the headlined page's first sentence has one of the very falsehoods that programmers believe about time in it.

Papers We Love (PWL) is a community built around reading, discussing and learning more about academic computer science papers. This repository serves as a directory of some of the best papers the community can find, bringing together documents scattered across the web. You can also visit the Papers We Love site for more info.

You might find the paper Out of the Tar Pit interesting if you haven't already read it: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...

The ideas and approaches you talk about evoked some of the concepts from that paper for me. It talks a lot about separating accidental complexity and infrastructure so you can focus only on what is essential to define your solutions.

Sure he was expecting a practical language and was designing one. Lisp was from day zero a project to implement a real programming language for a computer.

Earlier he experimented with IPL and also list processing programming on Fortran. The plan was to implement a Lisp compiler. At first the Lisp code McCarthy was experimenting with, was manually translated to machine code.

Then came up the idea to use EVAL as a base for an interpreter, which was implemented by manually translating the Lisp code to machine language. Around 1962 then a compiler followed.

https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/c...

I'm in a 4th camp: we should be writing our applications against a relational data model and _not_ marshaling query results into and out of Objects at all.

Elaborations on this approach:

- https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/d...

- https://riffle.systems/essays/prelude/

The short ask: Anyone know of any projects that bring incremental view maintenance to SQLite?

The why:

Applications are usually read heavy. It is a sad state of affairs that, for these kinds of apps, we don't put more work on the write path to allow reads to benefit.

Would the whole No-SQL movement ever even have been a thing if relational databases had great support for materialized views that updated incrementally? I'd like to think not.

And more context:

I'm working to push the state of "functional relational programming" [1], [2] further forward. Materialized views with incremental updates are key to this. Bringing them to SQLite so they can be leveraged one the frontend would solve this whole quagmire of "state management libraries." I've been solving the data-sync problem in SQLite (https://vlcn.io/) and this piece is one of the next logical steps.

If nobody knows of an existing solution, would love to collaborate with someone on creating it.

[1] - https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/design/out-of-the-tar-pit.pdf

Here is a great Repo on GitHub named paers-we-love. You will surely find some great papers there and also some good other resources. Hope this helps.

However, f and g are interchangeable anywhere else (this is not actually true because their addresses can be obtained and compared; showing that a C-like language retains its referential transparency despite the existence of so-called l-values was the point of what I think is the first paper to introduce the notion referential transparency to the study of programming languages: https://github.com/papers-we-love/papers-we-love/blob/main/l...)