Ivan’s Childhood; although all of Tarkovsky’s oeuvre is worth it.

That’s Alan Turing the traitor as played by Sherlock Holmes?

It is a film with a great list of cheap tropes to avoid.

The Tarot of the Bohemians.

I think it’s fairly parochial, and sounds quite infantile to me. Growing up (uk) we just used clockwise to tighten.

That was my, admittedly bitter, point, yes. You do have to wonder what the hell weretcollectively playing at.

We live in a world of plenty where we still produce enough food that nobody need go hungry.

It does make me wonder about quantum suicide.

The Sixth Sense.

I’m coming around to it.

That’s a cracking article.

My own use of jvm errors tends to follow the same kinds of patterns: I think the major fault with that model is having RuntimeException as a subclass of Exception, because it’s really intended for abandonment-style errors. (The problem is that lots of people use it instead as an exception system in order to cut down on boilerplate.)

I find it eye-opening that the author prefers callsite annotation with try (although I’m not going to argue with their experience at the time). I can see this being either “no big deal” or even “a good thing” to Rust users in particular - mutability and borrowing annotations at both callsite and definition aren’t required to make the language work afaict (your ide will instantly carp if you miss 'em out) but the increased programmer visibility is typically seen as a good thing. (Perhaps this is down to people largely reviewing PRs in a browser, I dunno.) Certainly there’s tons of good food for thought there.

I’m not sure why it’s “obviously” good to move from one mechanism to two: as a user I now have to categorise every path to work out which is appropriate.

What I said was less about adding to a function signature than it was about adding to a facade - that is, a system boundary, although the implementation may be the same depending on language. People typically use exceptions pretty badly - a function signature with a baggage-train of internal exceptions that might be thrown by implementation guts is another antipattern that gives the approach a bad rep. Errors have types too (or they should have), and the typical exception constructor has a wrapper capability for good reason.

That’s fine, and for that there are sum types. My own opinion differs - it’s a question of taste. Being able to bundle the handling of exceptional situations aside from the straight-line logic (or use RAIi-style cleanup) is notationally convenient.

Yes, you can do the same with monads; use the tools available to you.

Checked exceptions are powerful but misunderstood. Exception types are a useful part of the facade to a module - they express to a caller how it can go wrong even if used correctly.

Runtime exceptions are typically there to express contract-breaking by callers; although as an alternative return mechanism I’ve seen them used to simplify the inner workings of some frameworks.

I think they get a bad rep because there aren’t a ton of good examples of how to use them - even the java classpath had some egregious misuse initially that helped turn people off the key ideas.

…unless it’s running software that uses signed 32-bit timestamps, or stores data using that format.

The point about the “millennium bug” was that it was a category of problems that required (hundreds of) thousands of fixes. It didn’t matter if your OS was immune, because the OS isn’t where the value is.

Fab, cheers.

Dare I ask what the adjective “hella” means in this context?

Came here to mention laser cooling; glad someone else got there first.