In the Elixir ecosystem (where documentation is considered a "first-class citizen" in the language), you can run code examples as part of your test suite in a similar fashion ("doctest"): https://elixir-recipes.github.io/testing/doctests/
That’s all in the article. The author goes into the confusion that it had the Apple logo on it.
Win was conceived as a modifier reserved for the OS (not to be used by applications), while command never was. Command is for commands. If you come to the Mac from Win or Linux it often helps to think of command as what ctrl does on those systems. Ctrl on the Mac started as Terminal-Emulator specific modifier— Which to this day is great, because your universal copy shortcut (cmd-c) and interrupt (ctrl-c) are different things.
Indeed one would map win to command, but only because you need another key for a modifier that‘s not ctrl or opt/alt, conceptually they are different
> Apple introduced control keys (separate left and right ones) because companies writing terminal emulators needed it.
I'm not sure that's the correct reason.
The Apple II/III had the control key from the start. The Mac keyboard originally did not have control (nor escape.) When Apple introduced the external Apple Desktop Bus keyboard designed to be used with both the Apple IIgs and the Mac, it needed the full complement of keys to be used with both systems.
In this benchmark, models can correctly solve Rust problems 61% on first pass — A far cry from other languages such as C# (88%) or Elixir (a “buggy dynamic language”) where they perform best (97%).
I wonder why that is, it’s quite surprising. Obviously details of their benchmark design matter, but this study doesn’t support your claims.
- features a bit more actual data than “intuitions” compared to OP
- interesting to think about in an agent context specifically is runtime introspection afforded by the BEAM (which, out of how it developed, has always been very important in that world) - the blog post has a few notes on that as well
As the great Joe Armstrong used to say, “a lot of systems actually break the laws of physics”[1] — don’t program against the laws of physics.
> In distributed systems there is no real shared state (imagine one machine in the USA another in Sweden) where is the shared state? In the middle of the Atlantic? - shared state breaks laws of physics. State changes are propagated at the speed of light - we always know how things were at a remote site not how they are now. What we know is what they last told us. If you make a software abstraction that ignores this fact you’ll be in trouble.[2]
It’s astonishing to me that even so many long-term Apple observers don’t see this, even though they are sorta obvious about it. “Now that the hardware is so close, the systems converge, etc., there is really no reason iPad will not eventually run macOS” – No, macOS will continue to be dumbed and locked down (“security!!11”) until the point where the Macs can be safely switched over from the terribly open legacy OS.
