Arch-TK

66 ms·

961.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
What do you use instead?
962.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
The confirmation server might be asleep.
963.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
I've tried writing higher level bindings on top of libdbus. Once I realised that libdbus was not designed for writing reliable or sane software (there's an error? there's an error! what is it? who knows) I decided to try writ
964.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Vehement systemd defence also overwhelmingly comes from hobbyists who have no real use for an init system anyway. In fact, this whole argument is crap, most hatred of sysvinit comes from people who have never used it, is that a reason to di
965.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>Example involving signed, etc. I am aware that mouse based use of multiple cursors can be faster in some situations. But I would highly question if the example you gave isn't unique and contrived. If I was performing a local refact
966.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>big argument in favour of using mice Yes, I am aware of Acme and Sam and I am aware that good mouse driven interfaces are faster than using keyboard driven interfaces. I should point out that mouse driven interfaces are only better than
967.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
You can achieve a significant portion (if not more) of the things that people use multiple cursors for in other editors (or even in vim) with just plain vim regular expressions and other features. Every time I've used multiple-cursors
968.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>I've seen teams spending weeks on CMake and only being able to set a subset of these up. Aside from the fact that formatting has nothing to do with building (or development for that matter) that sounds like either a CMake issue or
969.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
De-facto standards that aren't written anywhere and change over time are not a very fun thing to work against. gcc, clang, python and I imagine quite a few other programming languages are developed to this day without the ability to ru
970.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Using the system package manager means that your software can actually in the future be packaged for a distribution. This is a major win in the sense that if your software ever achieves any level of popularity, it is more likely to actually
971.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
The only conclusion I can draw from what you just wrote is that you've encountered easily fixable issues and rather than try to solve them in a sensible manner you've backed yourself into a corner of solving them in a complicated
972.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>It isn't as simple, cause you have to do more. No? "or some metadata file format of your particular liking" is the sentence which includes "depending on your build setup it may be as simple as putting it in your carg
973.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
GNUmakefile: LDLIBS += $(shell pkg-config --libs sdl2) CFLAGS += $(shell pkg-config --cflags sdl2) prog: prog.o Then you just run `make` or `gmake` (the developer should be aware of what his platform of choice prefers
974.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>GNU vs BSD make incompatibilities ... just specify which one you intend people to use? both are about equally as portable >-o /dev/null does not work in msys weird, sounds like an msys bug >Flags for MSVC, GCC, and ICC f
975.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>Because then you don't actually have to do anything at all. It's wishful thinking to suggest that all build related tasks can and will be doable with cargo. If cargo does not do exactly what I want, either it's impossible
976.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
I don't see the irony in what I said. Do you want to address what I said with a bit more nuance and detail than just "haha irony"? Especially given that you seeing irony in something I said doesn't automatically dismiss
977.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
> The claim being made is that due to things like the borrow checker, this is often true for Rust code generally, moreso than it is with C and OpenMP. And, in Rust, if it doesn't Just Work, you'll get an error message pointing
978.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
> that you have to maintain yourself because there is no standard build system. Since rust has no standard, how can it have a standard build system? That aside, the fact that C has no enforced/bundled/included/coupled buil
979.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
> How do I add GLib as a dependency to my C project? You document in your documentation (or some metadata file format of your particular liking) the fact that your project requires GLib and which versions of GLib it supports (hopefully G
980.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>rayon = "*". Doesn't this either effectively force you to pin versions to ensure your code doesn't break or require you to constantly re-test your code to ensure there wasn't a breaking change? I don't see
981.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Lots of extreme generalisations and exaggerations of the situation with C. It's great that you like rust and want to write your code in it, I don't really care at the end of the day, but vague statements such are not very useful o
982.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
The dependency hell is not the kind of dependency hell where it's difficult to work on the code because including something might break something else. The dependency hell described in this email is to do with headers including headers
983.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Clearly Ingo is just an inexperienced developer who struggles to do this simple task. Maybe he needs more training?
984.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
It depends on whether the change is split up into nice units or not. In this case, despite being a 250,000 line change, it's split up into 2300 patches. That's much easier to review and look at than the equivalent change in 5 patc
985.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
> At this point, it seems to me like you have already decided I am wrong, no matter what I say, and have no desire to accept what I say that is meant to help you. So I'll just leave the conversation where it is. It seems a bit defea
986.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>I don't need a make, and neither should redo. I didn't meant to imply that you or redo needs a make. Just that for something like autotools or cmake, there's a lot of abstraction required just to get things to work. Or yo
987.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
>make it easier to make it work on Windows from the start The problem with working on windows is that there's no shared standard (unless you count whatever irrelevant part of the POSIX spec that windows follows a shared standard). O
988.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
I think everyone misunderstood your suggestion as an ethics clause when in reality it's just fluff, as you state later, something to this effect is already mentioned in the warranty clause. But, I should point out: Someone can acknowle
989.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Not all redo implementations treat $2 the same. Specifically JDEBP's redo differs in that $2 is the extension rather than the part with the extension removed (it's unspecified what $2 is for non default*.do files).
990.
by Arch-TK 5y ago
Aside from the fact that DJB barely specified redo to the point where you could make accusations claiming it did or did not do something, I think there are implementations of redo which are capable of fitting the requirements you specify. 1

More ›