Science inherently involves the reproduction of work that’s already been done. That’s how the process ensures reproducibility. Talking about the efficiency of science makes very little sense because the savings bought by science are privatized, viewed like externalities.
In the way that’s common in languages like Java where you’re making a property read-only, yes. But there’s a whole protocol in Python called descriptors where you can override the . on a field. The most common form of these is class methods annotated with the @property annotation, which makes it so the method can be accessed as if it were a property.
Yeah. I can understand the use case when it’s something relating to keeping simple state in sync by replacing it with derived state. But this particular case was flushing a cache after each get, which made each get of the property non-deterministic based on the class’s state.
I helped a friend debug a script last week that was working inconsistently in really weird ways. I looked at the script and it was all event hooks littered with sleep calls. I told him he was basically fuzz testing his own script and then getting surprised when he found race conditions. Shit was wild. Also, sometimes getters in Python are a mistake.
The US’s currently level of military aid is unsustainable, even for the most wealthy empire in history. Domestic production has been showing signs of not being able to keep up for a while now.
Is it bad if my first reaction to this is “I can fix her”? Like I feel like if I could just use it as a component system and pass simple types as props it would work nicely. But I suppose
That defeats the purpose anyway. It sounds like a pain to use for anything beyond basic contexts.
I use PHP daily. The only thing that seems overly magical on a cursory glance is Livewire, but I’ll probably end up using Solid for the frontend anyway.
For context: these are the original lines