Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from Tony Finch's blog
Here are a few tangentially-related ideas vaguely near the theme of comparison operators. comparison style clamp style clamp is median clamp in range range style style clash? comparison style Some languages such as BCPL, Icon, Python have chained comparison operators, like if min <= x <= max: ... In languages without chained comparison, I like to write comparisons as if they were chained, like, if min <= x && x <= max { // ... } A rule of thumb is to prefer less than (or equal) operators and avoid greater than. In a sequence of comparisons, order values from (expected) least to greatest. clamp style The clamp() function ensures a value is between some min and max, def clamp(min, x, max): if x < min: return min if max < x: return max return x I like to order its arguments matching the expected order of the values, following my rule of thumb for comparisons. (I used that flavour of clamp() in my article about GCRA.) But I seem to be unusual in this preference, based on a few examples I have seen recently. clamp is median Last month, Fabian Giesen pointed out a way to resolve this difference of opinion: A function that returns the median of three values is equivalent to a clamp() function that doesn’t care about the order of its arguments. This version is written so that it returns NaN if any of its arguments is NaN. (When an argument is NaN, both of its comparisons will be false.) fn med3(a: f64, b: f64, c: f64) -> f64 { match (a <= b, b <= c, c <= a) { (false, false, false) => f64::NAN, (false, false, true) => b, // a > b > c (false, true, false) => a, // c > a > b (false, true, true) => c, // b <= c <= a (true, false, false) => c, // b > c > a (true, false, true) => a, // c <= a <= b (true, true, false) => b, // a <= b <= c (true, true, true) => b, // a == b == c } } When two of its arguments are constant, med3() should compile to the same code as a simple clamp(); but med3()’s misuse-resistance comes at a small cost when the arguments are not known at compile time. clamp in range If your language has proper range types, there is a nicer way to make clamp() resistant to misuse: fn clamp(x: f64, r: RangeInclusive<f64>) -> f64 { let (&min,&max) = (r.start(), r.end()); if x < min { return min } if max < x { return max } return x; } let x = clamp(x, MIN..=MAX); range style For a long time I have been fond of the idea of a simple counting for loop that matches the syntax of chained comparisons, like for min <= x <= max: ... By itself this is silly: too cute and too ad-hoc. I’m also dissatisfied with the range or slice syntax in basically every programming language I’ve seen. I thought it might be nice if the cute comparison and iteration syntaxes were aspects of a more generally useful range syntax, but I couldn’t make it work. Until recently when I realised I could make use of prefix or mixfix syntax, instead of confining myself to infix. So now my fantasy pet range syntax looks like >= min < max // half-open >= min <= max // inclusive And you might use it in a pattern match if x is >= min < max { // ... } Or as an iterator for x in >= min < max { // ... } Or to take a slice xs[>= min < max] style clash? It’s kind of ironic that these range examples don’t follow the left-to-right, lesser-to-greater rule of thumb that this post started off with. (x is not lexically between min and max!) But that rule of thumb is really intended for languages such as C that don’t have ranges. Careful stylistic conventions can help to avoid mistakes in nontrivial conditional expressions. It’s much better if language and library features reduce the need for nontrivial conditions and catch mistakes automatically.
Here’s a story from nearly 10 years ago. the bug I think it was my friend Richard Kettlewell who told me about a bug he encountered with Let’s Encrypt in its early days in autumn 2015: it was failing to validate mail domains correctly. the context At the time I had previously been responsible for Cambridge University’s email anti-spam system for about 10 years, and in 2014 I had been given responsibility for Cambridge University’s DNS. So I knew how Let’s Encrypt should validate mail domains. Let’s Encrypt was about one year old. Unusually, the code that runs their operations, Boulder, is free software and open to external contributors. Boulder is written in Golang, and I had not previously written any code in Golang. But its reputation is to be easy to get to grips with. So, in principle, the bug was straightforward for me to fix. How difficult would it be as a Golang newbie? And what would Let’s Encrypt’s contribution process be like? the hack I cloned the Boulder repository and had a look around the code. As is pretty typical, there are a couple of stages to fixing a bug in an unfamiliar codebase: work out where the problem is try to understand if the obvious fix could be better In this case, I remember discovering a relatively substantial TODO item that intersected with the bug. I can’t remember the details, but I think there were wider issues with DNS lookups in Boulder. I decided it made sense to fix the immediate problem without getting involved in things that would require discussion with Let’s Encrypt staff. I faffed around with the code and pushed something that looked like it might work. A fun thing about this hack is that I never got a working Boulder test setup on my workstation (or even Golang, I think!) – I just relied on the Let’s Encrypt cloud test setup. The feedback time was very slow, but it was tolerable for a simple one-off change. the fix My pull request was small, +48-14. After a couple of rounds of review and within a few days, it was merged and put into production! A pleasing result. the upshot I thought Golang (at least as it was used in the Boulder codebase) was as easy to get to grips with as promised. I did not touch it again until several years later, because there was no need to, but it seemed fine. I was very impressed by the Let’s Encrypt continuous integration and automated testing setup, and by their low-friction workflow for external contributors. One of my fastest drive-by patches to get into worldwide production. My fix was always going to be temporary, and all trace of it was overwritten years ago. It’s good when “temporary” turns out to be true! the point I was reminded of this story in the pub this evening, and I thought it was worth writing down. It demonstrated to me that Let’s Encrypt really were doing all the good stuff they said they were doing. So thank you to Let’s Encrypt for providing an exemplary service and for giving me a happy little anecdote.
A couple of years ago I wrote about random floating point numbers. In that article I was mainly concerned about how neat the code is, and I didn’t pay attention to its performance. Recently, a comment from Oliver Hunt and a blog post from Alisa Sireneva prompted me to wonder if I made an unwarranted assumption. So I wrote a little benchmark, which you can find in pcg-dxsm.git. As a brief recap, there are two basic ways to convert a random integer to a floating point number between 0.0 and 1.0: Use bit fiddling to construct an integer whose format matches a float between 1.0 and 2.0; this is the same span as the result but with a simpler exponent. Bitcast the integer to a float and subtract 1.0 to get the result. Shift the integer down to the same range as the mantissa, convert to float, then multiply by a scaling factor that reduces it to the desired range. This produces one more bit of randomness than the bithacking conversion. (There are other less basic ways.) My benchmark has 2 x 2 x 2 tests: bithacking vs multiplying 32 bit vs 64 bit sequential integers vs random integers Each operation is isolated from the benchmark loop by putting it in a separate translation unit (to prevent the compiler from inlining) and there is a fence instruction (ISB SY on ARM, MFENCE on AMD) in the loop to stop the CPU from overlapping successive iterations. I ran the benchmark on my Apple M1 Pro and my AMD Ryzen 7950X. In the table below, the leftmost column is the number of random bits. The top half measures sequential numbers, the bottom half is random numbers. The times are nanoseconds per operation, which includes the overheads of the benchmark loop and function call. arm amd 23 12.15 11.22 24 13.37 11.21 52 12.11 11.02 53 13.38 11.20 23 14.75 12.62 24 15.85 12.81 52 16.78 14.23 53 18.02 14.41 The times vary a little from run to run but the difference in speed of the various loops is reasonably consistent. I think my conclusion is that the bithacking conversion is about 1ns faster than the multiply conversion on my ARM box. There’s a subnanosecond difference on my AMD box which might indicate that the conversion takes different amounts of time depending on the value? Dunno.
In hot weather I like to drink my coffee in an iced latte. To make it, I have a very large Bialetti Moka Express. Recently when I got it going again after a winter of disuse, it took me a couple of attempts to get the technique right, so here are some notes as a reminder to my future self next year. It’s worth noting that I’m not fussy about my coffee: I usually drink pre-ground beans from the supermarket, with cream (in winter hot coffee) or milk and ice. basic principle When I was getting the hang of my moka pot, I learned from YouTube coffee geeks such as James Hoffmann that the main aim is for the water to be pushed through the coffee smoothly and gently. Better to err on the side of too little flow than too much. I have not had much success trying to make fine temperature adjustments while the coffee is brewing, because the big moka pot has a lot of thermal inertia: it takes a long time for any change in gas level to have any effect on on the coffee flow. routine fill the kettle and turn it on put the moka pot’s basket in a mug to keep it stable fill it with coffee (mine needs about 4 Aeropress scoops) tamp it down firmly [1] when the kettle has boiled, fill the base of the pot to just below the pressure valve (which is also just below the filter screen in the basket) insert the coffee basket, making sure there are no stray grounds around the edge where the seal will mate screw on the upper chamber firmly put it on a small gas ring turned up to the max [2] leave the lid open and wait for the coffee to emerge immediately turn the gas down to the minimum [3] the coffee should now come out in a steady thin stream without spluttering or stalling when the upper chamber is filled near the mouths of the central spout, it’ll start fizzing or spluttering [4] turn off the gas and pour the coffee into a carafe notes If I don’t tamp the grounds, the pot tends to splutter. I guess tamping gives the puck better integrity to resist channelling, and to keep the water under even pressure. Might be an effect of the relatively coarse supermarket grind? It takes a long time to get the pot back up to boiling point and I’m not sure that heating it up slower helps. The main risk, I think, is overshooting the ideal steady brewing state too much, but: With my moka pot on my hob the lowest gas flow on the smallest rings is just enough to keep the coffee flowing without stalling. The flow when the coffee first emerges is relatively fast, and it slows to the steady state several seconds after I turn the heat down, so I think the overshoot isn’t too bad. This routine turns almost all of the water into coffee, which Hoffmann suggests is a good result, and a sign that the pressure and temperature aren’t getting too high.
TIL (or this week-ish I learned) why big-sigma and big-pi turn up in the notation of dependent type theory. I’ve long been aware of the zoo of more obscure Greek letters that turn up in papers about type system features of functional programming languages, μ, Λ, Π, Σ. Their meaning is usually clear from context but the reason for the choice of notation is usually not explained. I recently stumbled on an explanation for Π (dependent functions) and Σ (dependent pairs) which turn out to be nicer than I expected, and closely related to every-day algebraic data types. sizes of types The easiest way to understand algebraic data types is by counting the inhabitants of a type. For example: the unit type () has one inhabitant, (), and the number 1 is why it’s called the unit type; the bool type hass two inhabitants, false and true. I have even seen these types called 1 and 2 (cruelly, without explanation) in occasional papers. product types Or pairs or (more generally) tuples or records. Usually written, (A, B) The pair contains an A and a B, so the number of possible values is the number of possible A values multiplied by the number of possible B values. So it is spelled in type theory (and in Standard ML) like, A * B sum types Or disjoint union, or variant record. Declared in Haskell like, data Either a b = Left a | Right b Or in Rust like, enum Either<A, B> { Left(A), Right(B), } A value of the type is either an A or a B, so the number of possible values is the number of A values plus the number of B values. So it is spelled in type theory like, A + B dependent pairs In a dependent pair, the type of the second element depends on the value of the first. The classic example is a slice, roughly, struct IntSlice { len: usize, elem: &[i64; len], } (This might look a bit circular, but the idea is that an array [i64; N] must be told how big it is – its size is an explicit part of its type – but an IntSlice knows its own size. The traditional dependent “vector” type is a sized linked list, more like my array type than my slice type.) The classic way to write a dependent pair in type theory is like, Σ len: usize . Array(Int, len) The big sigma binds a variable that has a type annotation, with a scope covering the expression after the dot – similar syntax to a typed lambda expression. We can expand a simple example like this into a many-armed sum type: either an array of length zero, or an array of length 1, or an array of length 2, … but in a sigma type the discriminant is user-defined instead of hidden. The number of possible values of the type comes from adding up all the alternatives, a summation just like the big sigma summation we were taught in school. ∑ a ∈ A B a When the second element doesn’t depend on the first element, we can count the inhabitants like, ∑ A B = A*B And the sigma type simplifies to a product type. telescopes An aside from the main topic of these notes, I also recently encountered the name “telescope” for a multi-part dependent tuple or record. The name “telescope” comes from de Bruijn’s AUTOMATH, one of the first computerized proof assistants. (I first encountered de Bruijn as the inventor of numbered lambda bindings.) dependent functions The return type of a dependent function can vary according to the argument it is passed. For example, to construct an array we might write something like, fn repeat_zero(len: usize) -> [i64; len] { [0; len] } The classic way to write the type of repeat_zero() is very similar to the IntSlice dependent pair, but with a big pi instead of a big sigma: Π len: usize . Array(Int, len) Mmm, pie. To count the number of possible (pure, total) functions A ➞ B, we can think of each function as a big lookup table with A entries each containing a B. That is, a big tuple (B, B, … B), that is, B * B * … * B, that is, BA. Functions are exponential types. We can count a dependent function, where the number of possible Bs depends on which A we are passed, ∏ a ∈ A B a danger I have avoided the terms “dependent sum” and “dependent product”, because they seem perfectly designed to cause confusion over whether I am talking about variants, records, or functions. It kind of makes me want to avoid algebraic data type jargon, except that there isn’t a good alternative for “sum type”. Hmf.
More in programming
This is re-post of How to Permanently Increase Your Sales by 50% or More in Only One Day article by Steve Pavlina Of all the things you can do to increase your sales, one of the highest leverage activities is attempting to increase your products’ registration rate. Increasing your registration rate from 1.0% to 1.5% means that you simply convince one more downloader out of every 200 to make the decision to buy. Yet that same tiny increase will literally increase your sales by a full 50%. If you’re one of those developers who simply slapped the ubiquitous 30-day trial incentive on your shareware products without going any further than that, then I think a 50% increase in your registration rate is a very attainable goal you can achieve if you spend just one full day of concentrated effort on improving your product’s ability to sell. My hope is that this article will get you off to a good start and get you thinking more creatively. And even if you fail, your result might be that you achieve only a 25% or a 10% increase. How much additional money would that represent to you over the next five years of sales? What influence, if any, did the title of this article have on your decision to read it? If I had titled this article, “Registration Incentives,” would you have been more or less likely to read it now? Note that the title expresses a specific and clear benefit to you. It tells you exactly what you can expect to gain by reading it. Effective registration incentives work the same way. They offer clear, specific benefits to the user if a purchase is made. In order to improve your registration incentives, the first thing you need to do is to adopt some new beliefs that will change your perspective. I’m going to introduce you to what I call the “lies of success” in the shareware industry. These are statements that are not true at all, but if you accept them as true anyway, you’ll achieve far better results than if you don’t. Rule 1: What you are selling is merely the difference between the shareware and the registered versions, not the registered version itself. Note that this is not a true statement, but if you accept it as true, you’ll immediately begin to see the weaknesses in your registration incentives. If there are few additional benefits for buying the full version vs. using the shareware version, then you aren’t offering the user strong enough incentives to make the full purchase. Rule 2: The sole purpose of the shareware version is to close the sale. This is our second lie of success. Note the emphasis on the word “close.” Your shareware version needs to act as a direct sales vehicle. It must be able to take the user all the way to the point of purchase, i.e. your online order form, ideally with nothing more than a few mouse clicks. Anything that detracts from achieving a quick sale is likely to hurt sales. Rule 3: The customer’s perspective is the only one that matters. Defy this rule at your peril. Customers don’t care that you spent 2000 hours creating your product. Customers don’t care that you deserve the money for your hard work. Customers don’t care that you need to do certain things to prevent piracy. All that matters to them are their own personal wants and needs. Yes, these are lies of success. Some customers will care, but if you design your registration incentives assuming they only care about their own self-interests, your motivation to buy will be much stronger than if you merely appeal to their sense of honesty, loyalty, or honor. Assume your customers are all asking, “What’s in it for me if I choose to buy? What will I get? How will this help me?” I don’t care if you’re selling to Fortune 500 companies. At some point there will be an individual responsible for causing the purchase to happen, and that individual is going to consider how the purchase will affect him/her personally: “Will this purchase get me fired? Will it make me look good in front of my peers? Will this make my job easier or harder?” Many shareware developers get caught in the trap of discriminating between honest and dishonest users, believing that honest users will register and dishonest ones won’t. This line of thinking will ultimately get you nowhere, and it violates the third lie of success. When you make a purchase decision, how often do you use honesty as the deciding factor? Do you ever say, “I will buy this because I’m honest?” Or do you consider other more selfish factors first, such as how it will make you feel to purchase the software? The truth is that every user believes s/he is honest, so no user applies the honesty criterion when making a purchase decision. Thinking of your users in terms of honest ones vs. dishonest ones is a complete waste of time because that’s not how users primarily view themselves. Rule 4: Customers buy on emotion and justify with fact. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll see that this is how you make most purchase decisions. Remember the last time you bought a computer. Is it fair to say that you first became emotionally attached to the idea of owning a new machine? For me, it’s the feeling of working faster, owning the latest technology, and being more productive that motivates me to go computer shopping. Once I’ve become emotionally committed, the justifications follow: “It’s been two years since I’ve upgraded, it will pay for itself with the productivity boost I gain, I can easily afford it, I’ve worked hard and I deserve a new machine, etc.” You use facts to justify the purchase. Once you understand how purchase decisions are made, you can see that your shareware products need to first get the user emotionally invested in the purchase, and then you give them all the facts they need to justify it. Now that we’ve gotten these four lies of success out of the way, let’s see how we might apply them to create some compelling registration incentives. Let’s start with Rule 1. What incentives can be spawned from this rule? The common 30-day trial is one obvious derivative. If you are only selling the difference between the shareware and registered versions, then a 30-day trial implies that you are selling unlimited future days of usage of the program after the trial period expires. This is a powerful incentive, and it’s been proven effective for products that users will continue to use month after month. 30-day trials are easy for users to understand, and they’re also easy to implement. You could also experiment with other time periods such as 10 days, 14 days, or 90 days. The only way of truly knowing which will work best for your products is to experiment. But let’s see if we can move a bit beyond the basic 30-day trial here by mixing in a little of Rule 3. How would the customer perceive a 30-day trial? In most cases 30 days is plenty of time to evaluate a product. But in what situations would a 30-day trial have a negative effect? A good example is when the user downloads, installs, and briefly checks out a product s/he may not have time to evaluate right away. By the time the user gets around to fully evaluating it, the shareware version has already expired, and a sale may be lost as a result. To get around this limitation, many shareware developers have started offering 30 days of actual program usage instead of 30 consecutive days. This allows the user plenty of time to try out the program at his/her convenience. Another possibility would be to limit the number of times the program can be run. The basic idea is that you are giving away limited usage and selling unlimited usage of the program. This incentive definitely works if your product is one that will be used frequently over a long period of time (much longer than the trial period). The flip side of usage limitation is to offer an additional bonus for buying within a certain period of time. For instance, in my game Dweep, I offer an extra 5 free bonus levels to everyone who buys within the first 10 days. In truth I give the bonus levels to everyone who buys, but the incentive is real from the customer’s point of view. Remember Rule 3 - it doesn’t matter what happens on my end; it only matters what the customer perceives. Any customer that buys after the first 10 days will be delighted anyway to receive a bonus they thought they missed. So if your product has no time-based incentives at all, this is the first place to start. When would you pay your bills if they were never due, and no interest was charged on late payments? Use time pressure to your advantage, either by disabling features in the shareware version after a certain time or by offering additional bonuses for buying sooner rather than later. If nothing else and if it’s legal in your area, offer a free entry in a random monthly drawing for a small prize, such as one of your other products, for anyone who buys within the first X days. Another logical derivative of Rule 1 is the concept of feature limitation. On the crippling side, you can start with the registered version and begin disabling functionality to create the shareware version. Disabling printing in a shareware text editor is a common strategy. So is corrupting your program’s output with a simple watermark. For instance, your shareware editor could print every page with your logo in the background. Years ago the Association of Shareware Professionals had a strict policy against crippling, but that policy was abandoned, and crippling has been recognized as an effective registration incentive. It is certainly possible to apply feature limitation without having it perceived as crippling. This is especially easy for games, which commonly offer a limited number of playable levels in the shareware version with many more levels available only in the registered version. In this situation you offer the user a seemingly complete experience of your product in the shareware version, and you provide additional features on top of that for the registered version. Time-based incentives and feature-based incentives are perhaps the two most common strategies used by shareware developers for enticing users to buy. Which will work best for you? You will probably see the best results if you use both at the same time. Imagine you’re the end user for a moment. Would you be more likely to buy if you were promised additional features and given a deadline to make the decision? I’ve seen several developers who were using only one of these two strategies increase their registration rates dramatically by applying the second strategy on top of the first. If you only use time-based limitations, how could you apply feature limitation as well? Giving the user more reasons to buy will translate to more sales per download. One you have both time-based and feature-based incentives to buy, the next step is to address the user’s perceived risk by applying a risk-reversal strategy. Fortunately, the shareware model already reduces the perceived risk of purchasing significantly, since the user is able to try before buying. But let’s go a little further, keeping Rule 3 in mind. What else might be a perceived risk to the user? What if the user reaches the end of the trial period and still isn’t certain the product will do what s/he needs? What if the additional features in the registered version don’t work as the user expects? What can we do to make the decision to purchase safer for the user? One approach is to offer a money-back guarantee. I’ve been offering a 60-day unconditional money-back guarantee on all my products since January 2000. If someone asks for their money back for any reason, I give them a full refund right away. So what is my return rate? Well, it’s about 8%. Just kidding! Would it surprise you to learn that my return rate at the time of this writing is less than 0.2%? Could you handle two returns out of every 1000 sales? My best estimate is that this one technique increased my sales by 5-10%, and it only took a few minutes to implement. When I suggest this strategy to other shareware developers, the usual reaction is fear. “But everyone would rip me off,” is a common response. I suggest trying it for yourself on an experimental basis; a few brave souls have already tried it and are now offering money-back guarantees prominently. Try putting it up on your web site for a while just to convince yourself it works. You can take it down at any time. After a few months, if you’re happy with the results, add the guarantee to your shareware products as well. I haven’t heard of one bad outcome yet from those who’ve tried it. If you use feature limitation in your shareware products, another important component of risk reversal is to show the user exactly what s/he will get in the full version. In Dweep I give away the first five levels in the demo version, and purchasing the full version gets you 147 more levels. When I thought about this from the customer’s perspective (Rule 3), I realized that a perceived risk is that s/he doesn’t know if the registered version levels will be as fun as the demo levels. So I released a new demo where you can see every level but only play the first five. This lets the customer see all the fun that awaits them. So if you have a feature-limited product, show the customer how the feature will work. For instance, if your shareware version has printing disabled, the customer could be worried that the full version’s print capability won’t work with his/her printer or that the output quality will be poor. A better strategy is to allow printing, but to watermark the output. This way the customer can still test and verify the feature, and it doesn’t take much imagination to realize what the output will look like without the watermark. Our next step is to consider Rule 2 and include the ability close the sale. It is imperative that you include an “instant gratification” button in your shareware products, so the customer can click to launch their default web browser and go directly to your online order form. If you already have a “buy now” button in your products, go a step further. A small group of us have been finding that the more liberally these buttons are used, the better. If you only have one or two of these buttons in your shareware program, you should increase the count by at least an order of magnitude. The current Dweep demo now has over 100 of these buttons scattered throughout the menus and dialogs. This makes it extremely easy for the customer to buy, since s/he never has to hunt around for the ordering link. What should you label these buttons? “Buy now” or “Register now” are popular, so feel free to use one of those. I took a slightly different approach by trying to think like a customer (Rule 3 again). As a customer the word “buy” has a slightly negative association for me. It makes me think of parting with my cash, and it brings up feelings of sacrifice and pressure. The words “buy now” imply that I have to give away something. So instead, I use the words, “Get now.” As a customer I feel much better about getting something than buying something, since “getting” brings up only positive associations. This is the psychology I use, but at present, I don’t know of any hard data showing which is better. Unless you have a strong preference, trust your intuition. Make it as easy as possible for the willing customer to buy. The more methods of payment you accept, the better your sales will be. Allow the customer to click a button to print an order form directly from your program and mail it with a check or money order. On your web order form, include a link to a printable text order form for those who are afraid to use their credit cards online. If you only accept two or three major credit cards, sign up with a registration service to handle orders for those you don’t accept. So far we’ve given the customer some good incentives to buy, minimized perceived risk, and made it easy to make the purchase. But we haven’t yet gotten the customer emotionally invested in making the purchase decision. That’s where Rule 4 comes in. First, we must recognize the difference between benefits and features. We need to sell the sizzle, not the steak. Features describe your product, while benefits describe what the user will get by using your product. For instance, a personal information manager (PIM) program may have features such as daily, weekly, and monthly views; task and event timers; and a contact database. However, the benefits of the program might be that it helps the user be more organized, earn more money, and enjoy more free time. For a game, the main benefit might be fun. For a nature screensaver, it could be relaxation, beauty appreciation, or peace. Features are logical; benefits are emotional. Logical features are an important part of the sale, but only after we’ve engaged the customer’s emotions. Many products do a fair job of getting the customer emotionally invested during the trial period. If you have an addictive program or one that’s fun to use, such as a game, you may have an easy time getting the customer emotionally attached to using it because the experience is already emotional in nature. But whatever your product is, you can increase your sales by clearly illustrating the benefits of making the purchase. A good place to do this is in your nag screens. I use nag screens both before and after the program runs to remind the user of the benefits of buying the full version. At the very least, include a nag screen when the customer exits the program, so the last thing s/he sees will be a reminder of the product’s benefits. Take this opportunity to sell the user on the product. Don’t expect features like “customizable colors” to motivate anyone to buy. Paint a picture of what benefits the user will obtain with the full version. Will I save time? Will I have more fun? Will I live longer, save money, or feel better? The simple change from feature-oriented selling to benefit-oriented selling can easily double or triple your sales. Be sure to use this approach on your web site as well if you don’t already. Developers who’ve recently made the switch have been reporting some amazing results. If you’re drawing a blank when trying to come up with benefits for your products, the best thing you can do is to email some of your old customers and ask them why they bought your program. What did it do for them? I’ve done this and was amazed at the answers I got back. People were buying my games for reasons I’d never anticipated, and that told me which benefits I needed to emphasize in my sales pitch. The next key is to make your offer irresistible to potential customers. Find ways to offer the customer so much value that it would be harder to say no than to say yes. Take a look at your shareware product as if you were a potential customer who’d never seen it before. Being totally honest with yourself, would you buy this program if someone else had written it? If not, don’t stop here. As a potential customer, what additional benefits or features would put you over the top and convince you to buy? More is always better than less. In the original version of Dweep, I offered ten levels in the demo and thirty in the registered version. Now I offer only five demo levels and 152 in the full version, plus a built-in level editor. Originally, I offered the player twice the value of the demo; now I’m offering over thirty times the value. I also offer free hints and solutions to every level; the benefit here is that it minimizes player frustration. As I keep adding bonuses for purchasing, the offer becomes harder and harder to resist. What clever bonuses can you throw in for registering? Take the time to watch an infomercial. Notice that there is always at least one “FREE” bonus thrown in. Consider offering a few extra filters for an image editor, ten extra images for a screensaver, or extra levels for a game. What else might appeal to your customers? Be creative. Your bonus doesn’t even have to be software-based. Offer a free report about building site traffic with your HTML editor, include an essay on effective time management with your scheduling program, or throw in a small business success guide with your billing program. If you make such programs, you shouldn’t have too much trouble coming up with a few pages of text that would benefit your customers. Keep working at it until your offer even looks irresistible to you. If all the bonuses you offer can be delivered electronically, how many can you afford to include? If each one only gains one more customer in a thousand (0.1%), would it be worth the effort over the lifetime of your sales? So how do you know if your registration incentives are strong enough? And how do you know if your product is over-crippled? Where do you draw the line? These are tough issues, but there is a good way to handle them if your product is likely to be used over a long period of time, particularly if it’s used on a daily basis. Simply make your program gradually increase its registration incentives over time. One easy way to do this is with a delay timer on your nag screens that increases each time the program is run. Another approach is to disable certain features at set intervals. You begin by disabling non-critical features and gradually move up to disabling key functionality. The program becomes harder and harder to continue using for free, so the benefits of registering become more and more compelling. Instead of having your program completely disable itself after your trial period, you gradually degrade its usability with additional usage. This approach can be superior to a strict 30-day trial, since it allows your program to still be used for a while, but after prolonged usage it becomes effectively unusable. However, you don’t simply shock the user by taking away all the benefits s/he has become accustomed to on a particular day. Instead, you begin with a gentle reminder that becomes harder and harder to ignore. There may be times when your 30-day trial shuts off at an inconvenient time for the user, and you may lose a sale as a result. For instance, the user may not have the money at the time, or s/he may be busy at the trial’s end and forget to register. In that case s/he may quickly replace what was lost with a competitor’s trial version. The gradual degradation approach allows the user to continue using your product, but with increasing difficulty over time. Eventually, there is a breaking point where the user either decides to buy or to stop using the program completely, but this can be done within a window of time at the user’s convenience. Hopefully this article has gotten you thinking creatively about all the overlooked ways you can entice people to buy your shareware products. The most important thing you can do is to begin seeing your products through your customers’ eyes. What additional motivation would convince you to buy? What would represent an irresistible offer to you? There is no limit to how many incentives you can add. Don’t stop at just one or two; instead, give the customer a half dozen or more reasons to buy, and you’ll see your registration rate soar. Is it worth spending a day to do this? I think so.
I'm a big (neo)vim buff. My config is over 1500 lines and I regularly write new scripts. I recently ported my neovim config to a new laptop. Before then, I was using VSCode to write, and when I switched back I immediately saw a big gain in productivity. People often pooh-pooh vim (and other assistive writing technologies) by saying that writing code isn't the bottleneck in software development. Reading, understanding, and thinking through code is! Now I don't know how true this actually is in practice, because empirical studies of time spent coding are all over the place. Most of them, like this study, track time spent in the editor but don't distinguish between time spent reading code and time spent writing code. The only one I found that separates them was this study. It finds that developers spend only 5% of their time editing. It also finds they spend 14% of their time moving or resizing editor windows, so I don't know how clean their data is. But I have a bigger problem with "writing is not the bottleneck": when I think of a bottleneck, I imagine that no amount of improvement will lead to productivity gains. Like if a program is bottlenecked on the network, it isn't going to get noticeably faster with 100x more ram or compute. But being able to type code 100x faster, even with without corresponding improvements to reading and imagining code, would be huge. We'll assume the average developer writes at 80 words per minute, at five characters a word, for 400 characters a minute.What could we do if we instead wrote at 8,000 words/40k characters a minute? Writing fast Boilerplate is trivial Why do people like type inference? Because writing all of the types manually is annoying. Why don't people like boilerplate? Because it's annoying to write every damn time. Programmers like features that help them write less! That's not a problem if you can write all of the boilerplate in 0.1 seconds. You still have the problem of reading boilerplate heavy code, but you can use the remaining 0.9 seconds to churn out an extension that parses the file and presents the boilerplate in a more legible fashion. We can write more tooling This is something I've noticed with LLMs: when I can churn out crappy code as a free action, I use that to write lots of tools that assist me in writing good code. Even if I'm bottlenecked on a large program, I can still quickly write a script that helps me with something. Most of these aren't things I would have written because they'd take too long to write! Again, not the best comparison, because LLMs also shortcut learning the relevant APIs, so also optimize the "understanding code" part. Then again, if I could type real fast I could more quickly whip up experiments on new apis to learn them faster. We can do practices that slow us down in the short-term Something like test-driven development significantly slows down how fast you write production code, because you have to spend a lot more time writing test code. Pair programming trades speed of writing code for speed of understanding code. A two-order-of-magnitude writing speedup makes both of them effectively free. Or, if you're not an eXtreme Programming fan, you can more easily follow the The Power of Ten Rules and blanket your code with contracts and assertions. We could do more speculative editing This is probably the biggest difference in how we'd work if we could write 100x faster: it'd be much easier to try changes to the code to see if they're good ideas in the first place. How often have I tried optimizing something, only to find out it didn't make a difference? How often have I done a refactoring only to end up with lower-quality code overall? Too often. Over time it makes me prefer to try things that I know will work, and only "speculatively edit" when I think it be a fast change. If I could code 100x faster it would absolutely lead to me trying more speculative edits. This is especially big because I believe that lots of speculative edits are high-risk, high-reward: given 50 things we could do to the code, 49 won't make a difference and one will be a major improvement. If I only have time to try five things, I have a 10% chance of hitting the jackpot. If I can try 500 things I will get that reward every single time. Processes are built off constraints There are just a few ideas I came up with; there are probably others. Most of them, I suspect, will share the same property in common: they change the process of writing code to leverage the speedup. I can totally believe that a large speedup would not remove a bottleneck in the processes we currently use to write code. But that's because those processes are developed work within our existing constraints. Remove a constraint and new processes become possible. The way I see it, if our current process produces 1 Utils of Software / day, a 100x writing speedup might lead to only 1.5 UoS/day. But there are other processes that produce only 0.5 UoS/d because they are bottlenecked on writing speed. A 100x speedup would lead to 10 UoS/day. The problem with all of this that 100x speedup isn't realistic, and it's not obvious whether a 2x improvement would lead to better processes. Then again, one of the first custom vim function scripts I wrote was an aid to writing unit tests in a particular codebase, and it lead to me writing a lot more tests. So maybe even a 2x speedup is going to be speed things up, too. Patreon Stuff I wrote a couple of TLA+ specs to show how to model fork-join algorithms. I'm planning on eventually writing them up for my blog/learntla but it'll be a while, so if you want to see them in the meantime I put them up on Patreon.
Here’s Jony Ive in his Stripe interview: What we make stands testament to who we are. What we make describes our values. It describes our preoccupations. It describes beautiful succinctly our preoccupation. I’d never really noticed the connection between these two words: occupation and preoccupation. What comes before occupation? Pre-occupation. What comes before what you do for a living? What you think about. What you’re preoccupied with. What you think about will drive you towards what you work on. So when you’re asking yourself, “What comes next? What should I work on?” Another way of asking that question is, “What occupies my thinking right now?” And if what you’re occupied with doesn’t align with what you’re preoccupied with, perhaps it's time for a change. Email · Mastodon · Bluesky
There's no country on earth that does hype better than America. It's one of the most appealing aspects about being here. People are genuinely excited about the future and never stop searching for better ways to work, live, entertain, and profit. There's a unique critical mass in the US accelerating and celebrating tomorrow. The contrast to Europe couldn't be greater. Most Europeans are allergic to anything that even smells like a commercial promise of a better tomorrow. "Hype" is universally used as a term to ridicule anyone who dares to be excited about something new, something different. Only a fool would believe that real progress is possible! This is cultural bedrock. The fault lines have been settling for generations. It'll take an earthquake to move them. You see this in AI, you saw it in the Internet. Europeans are just as smart, just as inventive as their American brethren, but they don't do hype, so they're rarely the ones able to sell the sizzle that public opinion requires to shift its vision for tomorrow. To say I have a complicated relationship with venture capital is putting it mildly. I've spent a career proving the counter narrative. Proving that you can build and bootstrap an incredible business without investor money, still leave a dent in the universe, while enjoying the spoils of capitalism. And yet... I must admit that the excesses of venture capital are integral to this uniquely American advantage on hype. The lavish overspending during the dot-com boom led directly to a spectacular bust, but it also built the foundation of the internet we all enjoy today. Pets.com and Webvan flamed out such that Amazon and Shopify could transform ecommerce out of the ashes. We're in the thick of peak hype on AI right now. Fantastical sums are chasing AGI along with every dumb derivative mirage along the way. The most outrageous claims are being put forth on the daily. It's easy to look at that spectacle with European eyes and roll them. Some of it is pretty cringe! But I think that would be a mistake. You don't have to throw away your critical reasoning to accept that in the face of unknown potential, optimism beats pessimism. We all have to believe in something, and you're much better off believing that things can get better than not. Americans fundamentally believe this. They believe the hype, so they make it come to fruition. Not every time, not all of them, but more of them, more of the time than any other country in the world. That really is exceptional.
I’m working on a Go library appendstore for append-only store of lots of things in a single file. To make things as robust as possible I was calling os.File.Sync() after each append. Sync() is waiting until the data is acknowledged as truly, really written to disk (as opposed to maybe floating somewhere in disk drive’s write buffer). Oh boy, is it slow. A test of appending 1000 records would take over 5 seconds. After removing the Sync() it would drop to 5 milliseconds. 1000x faster. I made sync optional - it’s now up to the user of the library to pick it, defaults to non-sync. Is it unsafe now? Well, the reality is that it probably doesn’t matter. I don’t think lots of software does the sync due to slowness and the world still runs.
