Could also use Matz's Spinel Ruby compiler. That's Ruby with static types using RBS but you have to give up some metaprogramming to get it.
I love the idea that we could get ractors written with Spinel and compiled ahead of time. I also love the idea that I can use Ruby for self contained binary tools.
(And for the sake of avoiding confusion, Crystal is also a great project. I'm really pleased to see them continue making progress).
Personally I don't like the thought of giving up meta programming, and I don't think it's necessary. Spinel is great as a pragmatic way of getting an AOT compiler for a Ruby subset though, but it's not that hard to support meta programming in an AOT compiler.
Though it makes it harder to generate fast code, it's not impossible given that most Ruby meta programming runs early and then doesn't change the program again, and most patterns are recognisable and it seems likely to be (I'm on and off working on my own Ruby AOT compiler) possible to statically verify for most programs that after a given point most code will not change types and so do static type inference to elide most type checks (a type in such a Ruby program will not be a given class, but a given version of a given class or meta class)
That's very funny to see, as I was just watching a presentation Matz gave last year where he was arguing static types won't be needed in the future because LLMs will just figure it all out, so Ruby with its dynamic types was well positioned to be the language of LLMs.
Basically he's saying static typing is needed for AI today because it's "junior level", but for senior level programmers they are more experienced so these types blend into the background; therefore when AI is a senior level in the future, it will also not require static typing to not make mistakes. That writing correct code will be as natural to the LLM as moving your arm is to you.
Everyone wants their favourite language to be well positioned to be the language of LLMs, in reality they will eventually be good enough to generate code directly.
And in what concerns interpreted languages, they will be replaced by agentic runtimes as it is already the case in iPaaS cloud products.
Interesting spec. Why go for 48K of RAM and not at least 64K (the full address space without paging)?
Back in the day 48K got used as a way of binning in the ZX Spectrum (Z80 based) to make use of cheap "bad" memory. Surely RAM prices aren't that crazy now? :P
Wouldn't this be because the ROM is taking up address space and they don't have bank switching? One of the future goals is to copy the ROM and RAM and switch it out of the address space.
That's how it was on the Spectrum, at least - it had 64k of RAM but the bottom 16K was permanently mapped to the ROM[0].
Might have been interesting if they'd allowed you to page out the ROM to access the extra 16K - load a small routine from tape that contains your own tape loading routine, swap out the ROM, load the rest of your app, bob's your uncle. Would have needed some shenanigans to swap in the ROM on reset, obvs.
This was exactly one of the many hardware projects that were published in the spanish magazine microhobby.
Long story short: it added 16K of RAM that was mapped at 0, and allowed both manual control with buttons or software control via a port to decide if it is mapped only for writes or it is mapped for both reads and writes.
My understanding was that Sinclare got to 48K using 8× 4116 + 8× 4532 chips where the 4532 was basically a 64K-bit 4164 where only half the chip worked.
> One of the future goals is to copy the ROM and RAM and switch it out of the address space.
As a kid that’s a hilarious name because “trump” is also a euphemism for fart. To this day, fart is the first thing I think of when I hear the word trump.
Anonymous source can say anything and telegraph can fully make it up also. And it also doesn't matter if Musk suggested it.
The fact is Starshield is controlled by US Govt and they decide what happens with it. Not Musk.
Starlink is controlled by SpaceX, Musk decides what happens with it. It is not allowed to use Starlink for most military purposes. Nothing changed now.
Complaints about anonymous sources might be legitimate when there are legitimate protections for whistleblowers, but an autocratic regime like the US' current government does not deserve any benefit of the doubt - they literally keep openly threatening dissenters and whistleblowers!
Until the rule of law has been re-established and participants have been prosecuted, the standard you're holding sources to is unreasonable.
Before the execution livestream was called off, Trump said that people who leak to the press should be shot. It doesn't take a big leap to see where this is going and what the stakes are.
Say a truth and mix it with some lies. Good job calling democratic government as autocratic. Remember it when your democratic govt is called communist.
This whole thread started with uncharitable assumption saying Musk did it. The fact is Starshield is govt controlled and spacex/musk is not responsible for any change like this.
I object today's abuses and treatment of snowden assange etc too. That doesn't mean I have to have TDS/EDS and uncharitable assumption for people I don't like and charitable for the ones I like.
Which sounds more plausible - that Musk is able to bypass the US government to do whatever he wants with Starshield in Ukraine or that the US administration did this to comply with Trump's wishes to remind the Ukrainians that they are dependent on the US and cannot ignore the wishes of the US President?
Nothing says Musk bypassed the government. The currently reported story is that Musk (presumably seeing Trump was throwing in his lot with Russia), approached the White House with an idea, and the White House agreed to it.
reply