For pretty much everything. My terminal is in Ruby, with a Ruby font renderer, running Ruby shell, and my editor is in Ruby, my window manager, my file manager.
(Yes, I'm taking it a bit far; my prototype Ruby compiler is self-hosting finally, so I guess sometime in the next 20 years I'll end up booting into a Ruby kernel for no good reason...)
> More importantly, on CI systems it’s relatively common to check out code using git, and git doesn’t care about mtime
git doesn't care about mtime, but git maintains trees whose hash changes if any constituent part of the tree changes. It'd seem tempting to check for a .git and if present use the git tree to determine whether to invalidate the cache.
Aside from the oddness of making this cache git aware, with the new implementation I suspect querying git to revalidate the cache would take longer than just rebuilding it.
Looking up the hash of a tree in git is few enough operations that I would be very surprised if that is true for all but the smallest caches. If you were to shell out to the git binary, maybe.
The bus always seemed like the oddest part to zero in on. By analogy, an Opteron in 2003 was a 64 bit CPU with a 32 bit HyperTransport bus, but no one called an Opteron system 32 bit. The width of a particular internal implementation detail is a strange duck IMO.
I think part of it was that to hardware companies the bus width is actually extremely important - the whole system is built around it, and the programming model the software guys work with less so.
And then the other part of it is the marketing angle: everyone knew full 32-bit inside and out chips were just on the horizon. Downplaying the 68k’s 32-bitness would give them a selling point for the 68020.
All ALU operations are also more expensive with 32 bit operands. So 16 bit data bus, 24 bit address bus. Slower arithmetic with 32 bit operands. I never though of it as a 32 bit CPU.
Not at all! Use of the Copper to punch up visuals was de rigeur on the Amiga - Amiga games are immediately recognizable by their Copper-fueled sky gradients for instance. I actually think that if there's any really good explanation for why you like might find Amiga graphics more pleasing than VGA, the Copper is the thing.
Word Basic back in the Word 95 days translated keywords.
The source was saved tokenized, so the program would have different keywords when loaded in different version of Word. I don't know if there was a Nynorsk version, but I presume there must have been.
(I once had a contract where I spent the first week sorting out problems caused by someone managing to move Word Basic from a Danish version of Word to a Norwegian version untokenised; the problem being of course that the Danish and Norwegian keywords had a lot of overlap, read just fine to a Norwegian reader, but there were differences and so everything broken and the original Word Basic files were not available to me so I couldn't just load that into Norwegian Word... Fun times. This was also the first time I had ever seen Word Basic, after confidently telling the recruiter that of course I knew it, as I was desperate to land the contract - in the end I finished ahead of time, so it was all good)
This was the reason I installed only the English version of windows and office. I do not like Dutch, even though it's my native tongue. I grew up with os and programming languages in English because translation was too expensive and I got used to it
> One can make similar arguments about Bokmål and Sami, but people speak Sami. And I would argue that a lot more people speak "pure Bokmål" than Nynorsk.
Very, very few. I used to, as a side effect of being quite asocial and reading a lot as a child, and reinforced by my dads very conservative dialect for western Oslo despite where we were living (half an hour drive out the other side of Oslo; dialects in Norway are very local - in that span you pass through at least one other dialect area). The dialect differences were significant enough that an exchange student in high school who was speaking close to perfect Norwegian toward the end of the year still struggled to understand me.
But even then, I adopted more and more of the regional dialect over time. Unless you're a hermit it's hard not to. And there are basically no place in Norway where the local dialect is pure Bokmål.
There might well be more people who can switch to speak pure Bokmål than Nynorsk, though, because it is the primary written language of far more people, and so its the easiest to slip into if you want to speak "formal" Norwegian. This was more pronounced before, when there was a tendency to see the written languages, and especially Bokmål, as more prestigious, and so you might hold a speech in Bokmål instead of your own dialect, TV presenters favoured "pure" Bokmål or Nynorsk instead of their dielcts etc. That's thankfully changed
What do you know about Bokmål being more prestigious in the past? You don’t respect the other form enough to cognize that it exists.[1] I don’t think that lends itself to a well thought out comparison.
> What do you know about Bokmål being more prestigious in the past?
Having grown up in Norway and seen first hand how it was treated that way.
> You don’t respect the other form enough to cognize that it exists.[1]
I don't like Nynorsk, sure, but that has zero relevance to the point I made, which was if anything a point of contention for those who do like Nynorsk for decades, and a subject of intense activism.
EDIT: You seem to think that I am suggesting that makes one better than the other, or that it should be that way. Neither is the case - there's a reason I wrote "That's thankfully changed". But it was very much the case up until at least the 1980's that Bokmål was treated more favourably than Nynorsk in all kinds of contexts. E.g. companies expecting communication with customers should be done in Bokmål, for example, was an actual thing.
> Having grown up in Norway and seen first hand how it was treated that way.
In Oslo.
> I don't like Nynorsk, sure,
That’s not what respect or disrespect is about.
> but that has zero relevance to the point I made,
No. The relevance is what I stated, in the next sentence that you did not quote.
> which was if anything a
What I questioned was its truthfulness. Not what kind of person would say it.
> You seem to think that I am suggesting that makes one better than the other, or that it should be that way.
I did not state or think that you were making a normative statement.
> But it was very much the case up until at least the 1980's that Bokmål was treated more favourably than Nynorsk in all kinds of contexts. ...
Being used more including being dictated from some top-down direction does not necessarily have anything to do with prestige and could be entirely prosaic.
It doesn't change the fact that this has been a well established aspect of the language struggle in Norway for well over a century, to the point that when I went to school it was even covered in history lessons.
I'm mystified with how you are ignorant of this. Bokmål has it's origin firmly in being derived from Danish via Riksmål, as based on how the elites spoke.
The spread of Bokmål was a direct consequence of its prestige as a consequence of for a very long time being the favoured written language of the elite, leading to adoption even in areas where the spoken dialect was closer to Nynorsk.
Yes, coming from the elite strata is and has objectively been considered signifiers of high status and prestige in most societies throughout human history.
I sense that you are trying to imply that I am applying some kind of value judgement in recognising what people have historically found prestigiuous.
As a Norwegian with passable German, written Dutch feels almost like just jumbling some letters around and adding unnecessary consonants... (Spoken Dutch, though, is entirely incomprehensible to me) The language continuum around the North Sea is fairly tight (more so if you consider Low German instead of standard German so you don't need to deal with the effects of the annoying High German consonant shift (think Dag -> Tag, Schip -> Schiff etc.))
I once had some Norwegian room mates in Ireland, and whenever we collectively couldn't find the proper English word, we usually got lucky with our native tongues. When listening to Scandi TV series, I'm still surprised more than I should be by the occasional match (recently: suddenly -> "plutselig", similar to German "plötzlich").
Now, as for the Danish room mate, he might as well have been speaking Greek.
In Norway, Danish is sometimes subjected to friendly ridicule as sounding like Norwegian spoken with a potato in your mouth...
Danish is if anything ever so slightly closer to German in vocabulary and grammar, but the pronunciation is another matter.
The effect is bigger in writing. In high school I worked my way through Faust in German by finding an old Danish translation as a parallel text - the old Danish version was a decent halfway point when I struggled too much with the German, and helped me find similarities I wouldn't otherwise.
I studied in Trondheim for a semester and learned some Norwegian. Whenever I didn't know a word, I just pronounced the Dutch or English word in a 'Norwegian way'. Most of the time people didn't even blink. So much so that I'd then ask them if the word I just used existed and invariably the answer was that that was the correct word.
(Yes, I'm taking it a bit far; my prototype Ruby compiler is self-hosting finally, so I guess sometime in the next 20 years I'll end up booting into a Ruby kernel for no good reason...)
reply