There is an extension called twp or something like that for firefox. IME it is pretty good

Arrow has two variants of it and this is one of them. Other variant has a seperate offsets array that you use to index into the active “field” array, so it is slower to process in most cases but is more compact

It is wildly more complex

And the error magically disappears when the function returns it?

It doesn’t disappear, it forces you to handle it.

Propagating upwards a valid way of handling it and often the correct answer.

There needs to be something at the top level that can handle a crashing process.

You mean like kubernetes that restarts your program when it crashes?

can Rust handle global panics?

Or can a unwrap be stopped?

This is just a normal Tuesday for languages with Exception and try/catch.

> This is just a normal Tuesday for languages with Exception and try/catch.

Yes, unfortunately, random stack unrolls and weird state bugs as a result are a normal Tuesday for languages with (unchecked) Exception and try/catch

Not panicking code is tedious to write. It is not realistic to expect everything to be non panic. There is a reason that panicking exists in the first place.

Them calling unwrap on a limit check is the real issue imo. Everything that takes in external input should assume it is bad input and should be fuzz tested imo.

In the end, what is the point of having a limit check if you are just unwrapping on it

> Not panicking code is tedious to write.

Using the question mark operator [1] and even adding in some anyhow::context goes a long way to being able to fail fast and return an Err rather then panicking.

Sure you need to handle Results all the way up the stack but it forces you to think about how those nested parts of your app will fail as you travel back up the stack.

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/rust-by-example/std/result/questio...

On the other hand, it is cool to be up when the internet is down

This is not a valid cause. They spend insane amounts of money on advertising and also make insane amounts of revenue. Don’t think “them keeping the cost down” is relevant in this context.

This is how people do things as well imo. LLM does the same thing on some level but it is just not good enough for majority of use cases

It is better if it is out in the open compared to just some select few diabolical organizations having access to it

I'm no expert on math but "math is pattern matching" really sounds wrong.

Maybe programming is mostly pattern matching but modern math is built on theory and proofs right?

Nah, its all pattern matching. This is how automated theorem provers like Isabelle are built, applying operations to lemmas/expressions to reach proofs.

I'm sure if you pick a sufficiently broad definition of pattern matching your argument is true by definition!

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with the topic of discussions, which is the capabilities of LLMs, which may require a more narrow definition of pattern matching.

Automated theorem provers are also built around backtracking, which is absent in LLMs.

When an LLM does it, it's pattern matching.

RL training amounts to pattern matching.

How does an LLM decode Base64? Decode algorithm? No - predictive pattern matching.

An LLM isn't predicting what a person thinks - it's predicting what a person does.