nmcb

@SethTisue @pfn @paulp @retronym

I'm back online after a 4 hour train travel and had the opportunity to contemplate the conversational
session on scala/scala about whether it is possible in principle to implement the ackermann function
by "just typing in it's recursive definition in scala" [1], i.e. without applying some mental
translation from the mathematical definition into the scala language, and without applying some scala
library construct, and without me writing a trampoline for some part of the recursive definition for
that matter.

My current understanding is that this is _not_ possible, but would be happy to be proven wrong.  I know

nmcb

WHITESPACE ODDITY
  by Paul Phillips, in eternal admiration of David Bowie, RIP

Bound Ctrl to Major mode
Bound Ctrl to Major mode
Read inputrc and set extdebug on
Bound Ctrl to Major mode (Ten, Nine, Eight, Seven, Six)
Connecting readline, options on (Five, Four, Three)
Check the syntax, may terminfo be with you (Two, One, Exec)

nmcb

Latency Comparison Numbers
--------------------------
L1 cache reference                            0.5 ns
Branch mispredict                             5   ns
L2 cache reference                            7   ns             14x L1 cache
Mutex lock/unlock                            25   ns
Main memory reference                       100   ns             20x L2 cache, 200x L1 cache
Compress 1K bytes with Zippy              3,000   ns
Send 1K bytes over 1 Gbps network        10,000   ns    0.01 ms
Read 4K randomly from SSD*              150,000   ns    0.15 ms

nmcb

object naming {
    object dsl {

        import scala.language.implicitConversions

        implicit def pathNameToNameOps(name: PathName): PathNameDsl = new PathNameDsl(name)
        implicit def verbNameToNameOps(name: VerbName): VerbNameDsl = new VerbNameDsl(name)
        implicit def typeNameToNameOps(name: TypeName): TypeNameDsl = new TypeNameDsl(name)

        class PathNameDsl(val path: PathName) {