veloren VS julia

I know that code.org's lessons have a "view the real code" box, helping to ease one into the "here's how to think about problems and structure, but here's the actual JavaScript that underpins it". If you haven't tried that, it may help

I also recently learned that Brilliant uses block-based lessons, too, so there's obviously some there-there

I would guess that a lot of the problem is one of actualization: how does one go from solving "someone else's problems" to one of realizing their own ideas. Based on what I've seen, I'd guess that a Minecraft mod port that maps blockly down into lua would go a long way toward "do some things that materialize change in an environment that is familiar." I haven't used Roblox, but I believe it's similar so if they have a programming language, same-same. I started to suggest using Valoren <https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren#get-veloren> since it's actual FOSS and thus would be much, much easier to integrate into, but I haven't played it in order to know how much uncanny-valley it would have with any preexisting Minecraft experience

Games (Veloren, or check out this website for updates on other games being developed in Rust)

Firstly, it's open-source. That means that all code associated with the project is freely available (it's right here!) and you're welcome to download, modify, recompile, and make changes to it as you wish. In fact, there have already been a few forks of the project that added new items, abilities, bosses, and other such things. Veloren is also released under GPL v3, a license that pretty much ensures that the code will always be open-source, meaning that anybody can take the existing code and remix it, mod it, or otherwise build upon it.

I found this on the gitlab https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/issues/1755

sounds like a wayland issue, can you check our https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/issues list and if you dont find this error, you could help us by opening a bug and giving it a good description: Maybe there is even a workaround in our book:

Trying to replace C with something like Rust, is essentially saying that we should rewrite all kernels in Rust. C is the common language because it talks to the kernel, which talks to the hardware.

Forgetting how much would need to be replaced with objectively much slower code, Rust simply cannot do some things. You cannot always make absolute guarantees about memory safety for example when it comes to low-level programming. Sometimes to be fast, you have to make assumptions and take risks.

I am currently watching the Veloron game [1] as an example of how larger Rust projects may begin to look. I see something like this [2] and it doesn't look all dissimilar from C, just with a new syntax. Has writing this game eliminated all bugs? Nope [3]. Maybe there are less segfaults and bad memory management, but this was just one class of bugs.

[1] https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren

[2] https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/blob/master/server/src/...

[3] https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren/-/issues/?sort=closed_des...

Oh dang, looks like it's open source too. licensed under GPLv3 - https://gitlab.com/veloren/veloren

It's really amazing to see how Veloren has improved over the years. Makes me wonder what we'll see in the future. I was really surprised when I saw the train tracks merge request 😄

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...