This is my personal programming environment. There are many like it, but
this one is mine.
With regard to naming (that's a lot of naming discussion for a
*tacit*programming environment - don't you think?), I like the idea of
personal
sets of PetNames. After all, we're discussing *personal*
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 5:21 AM, Eran Meir eranm...@gmail.com wrote:
This is my personal programming environment. There are many like it, but
this one is mine.
Indeed. That's the same way I feel about my smart phone, and my Ubuntu
desktop. :)
Except those aren't nearly as casually
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 10:03 AM, Sam Putman atmanis...@gmail.com wrote:
The notion is to have a consistent way to map between a large sound file
and the large sound file. From one perspective it's just a large number,
and it's nice if two copies of that number are never treated as different
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Sam Putman atmanis...@gmail.com wrote:
How often do we compare very large integers for equality?
Rather often, and still less than we should. Git does this routinely, and
Datomic
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Sam Putman atmanis...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 2:31 PM, David Barbour dmbarb...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Sam Putman atmanis...@gmail.comwrote:
How often do we compare very large integers for equality?
Rather
hi,
in recent discussions on this list, the idea of using hashes to
identify or even name things is often mentioned.
in this context, hashes are treated as being unique;
albeit unlikely, it *is* possible that hashes are equal
for two distinct things. are there ideas about
how to handle such a
On 09/26/2013 05:50 PM, Wolfgang Eder wrote:
hi,
in recent discussions on this list, the idea of using hashes to
identify or even name things is often mentioned.
in this context, hashes are treated as being unique;
albeit unlikely, it *is* possible that hashes are equal
for two distinct
Buy insurance.
On Sep 26, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Wolfgang Eder e...@generalmagic.at wrote:
hi,
in recent discussions on this list, the idea of using hashes to
identify or even name things is often mentioned.
in this context, hashes are treated as being unique;
albeit unlikely, it *is*
The usual idea here is that you use very large hashes (e.g. 256 bits or
larger) such that the probability of a collision is less than, for example,
the probability of cosmic radiation causing the same issues over the course
of a couple years, or of a meteor striking your computer.
Then you stop
I wouldn't trust anyone selling hash collision insurance.
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM, mclelland.m...@gmail.com wrote:
Buy insurance.
On Sep 26, 2013, at 7:50 PM, Wolfgang Eder e...@generalmagic.at wrote:
hi,
in recent discussions on this list, the idea of using hashes to
identify
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 6:10 PM, Martin McClure
martin.mccl...@gemtalksystems.com wrote:
1) Have a single central authority that hands out identifiers.
The central authority model works in some scenarios, but for widely
distributed systems the reliability problems (the central authority may
11 matches
Mail list logo
