It's a joke to think trump cares about taking care of his own after all the evidence to the contrary. He throws everyone under the bus the first chance the gets.
> When Elon Musk came to the White House asking me for help on all of his many subsidized projects, whether it's electric cars that don't drive long enough, driverless cars that crash, or rocketships to nowhere, without which subsidies he'd be worthless and tell me how he was a big Trump fan and Republican, I could have said, "drop to your knees and beg," and he would have done it,"
Yes, but I was under the impression that graal-level inter-op was limited to packages the graal toolchain could compile.
Thus, while swift and graal both depend on llvm, they use different variants and there's no real way to make inter-op between swift and graal (even using the llvm it which graal is said to be able to consume).
e.g., I believe this announcement represents the work to compile a python (3.11) and some proof-of-concept python packages using graal toolchain, to spur other packages to support the same.
So I'd really love to be wrong, but I believe building under the graal llvm is the common factor.
I don’t really see how swift comes into the picture, besides SuLong being a thing (running LLVM bitcode). Native binary was meant as a compile target in the previous comment, I believe, not as an input. Graal can do both, but as a target it has no dependency on LLVM.
So yeah, graalvm should be able to produce a native binary for python code (though depending on the specifics it might actually be more like a native binary interpreter running python scripts, it can’t optimize in every circumstance but I’m hazy on the details).
It's okay. It can handle some boilerplate for me. For example, the stuff you have to do to make a bridge in electron between renderer and main. I'd say it's better than co-pilot though. I asked it to pull up some state and it could do that correct sometimes. If I asked to it do something complicated it would just make stuff up and waste my time though.
The point is that there is no official way to fsync a directory in Java and that everyone is relying on an unintentional side effect of an unrelated function to accomplish it. The link I supplied is about the fact that the side effect briefly disappeared in Java 9 until enough people complained.
We're still living in xkcd 1172 land with this, have been for a decade or who knows how long.
If you think it is the code then you're missing the point. It is the idea.
If you want to implement it, then maybe you have to study this implementation, study with the implementors, and understand what it is and what it does and how it does it, and stop obsessing over some ASCII files that encode a little bit of the logic.
Life is sometimes a jigsaw puzzle. It is the picture that really matters. Having a map of the shape of all the pieces, with no images, would not really help you. It might after an epic amount of work help you reassemble a square of cardboard but that is not the picture.
It's probably because it's providing different amounts of value to different people. For some people, it's not giving any benefits, and in fact making their work harder (me). They are skeptical because people naturally don't believe each other when their personal experience does not match up with another.
EDIT: Ahh it's a video, https://huly.io/videos/pages/pricing/plans/common.mp4
reply