busybee Code

On SpinDizzy MUCK there are a bunch of “hug” verbs which are a bit whimsical and a bit nonsensical, and for reasons that are too silly to get into, I have been locked in an eternal battle with Austin in which I am constantly creating more.

A while back I ran into an issue with a few miscellaneous world scripts breaking around me, and it turned out to be that one of the global scripts, for reasons I’m still unclear on, attempts to parse every verb attached to a character object, and for other reasons I am also unclear on, it ends up attempting to push every name for the verb onto the stack.

Tired of dealing with the annoying processes necessary to run an unsigned application on macOS?

Here’s a simple thing to make your life a lot easier: dequarantine.zip

Download this file, open it up, double-click the dequarantine.workflow file, and then install it as a Quick Action. Now if you want to let an unsigned application run, right-click (or ctrl-click) it, select “Quick Actions,” then “dequarantine.” And then, done.

Have fun.

In the spirit of falsehoods programmers believe about names and time, here’s some falsehoods about email which are all too common.

Around a year and a half ago I wrote an article on the perils of relying on big-O notation, and in it I focused on a comparison between comparison-based sorting (via std::sort) and radix sort, based on the common bucketing approach.

Recently I came across a video on radix sort which presents an alternate counting-based implementation at the end, and claims that the tradeoff point between radix and comparison sort comes much sooner. My intuition said that even counting-based radix sort would still be slower than a comparison sort for any meaningful input size, but it’s always good to test one’s intuitions.

So, hey, it turns out I was wrong about something. (But my greater point still stands.)

A common pitfall I see programmers run into is putting way too much stock into Big O notation and using it as a rough analog for overall performance. It’s important to understand what the Big O represents, and what it doesn’t, before deciding to optimize an algorithm based purely on the runtime complexity.

A frequent thing that people want to do in making games or interactive applications is to shuffle a list. One common and intuitive approach that people take is to simply sort the list, but use a random number generator as the comparison operation. (For example, this is what’s recommended in Fuzzball’s MPI documentation, and it is a common answer that comes up on programming forums as well.)

This way is very, very wrong.

When I was replacing peewee with PonyORM, I was evaluating a few options, including moving away from an ORM entirely and simply storing the metadata in indexed tables in memory. This would have also helped to solve a couple of minor annoying design issues (such as improper encapsulation of the actual content state into the application instance), but I ended up not doing this.

A big reason why is that there don’t actually seem to be any useful in-memory indexed table libraries for Python. Or many other languages.

This article was originally written for the Publ blog. I have reproduced a slightly modified version here so that it hopefully finds a wider audience.

Whenever I build a piece of software for the web, almost invariably somebody asks why I’m not using PHP to do it. While much has been written on this subject from a standpoint of what’s wrong with the language (and with which I agree quite a lot!), that isn’t, to me, the core of the problem with PHP on the web.

So, I want to talk a bit about some of the more fundamental issues with PHP, which actually goes back well before PHP even existed and is intractably linked with the way PHP applications themselves are installed and run.

(I will be glossing over a lot of details here.)