Raphael_Amiard

10 ms·

61.
by Raphael_Amiard 9y ago
> How does Ada address the problems that Rust's borrow checker addresses? Use-after-free in particular. It has a more limited way of writing safe programs (memory pools and sub-pools, no aliasing by default, etc). That said, for so
62.
by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago
This makes me think of the terra project ! http://terralang.org Terra looks nicer to me, mostly because of syntax, but I can see those two projects having about the same power
63.
by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago
It's a bit more complicated than that. Ada has no safe object deallocation, but guarantees safety as long as you don't use any unchecked operations (object deallocation being one). Ada is also much more powerful than C/C++ i
64.
Make with Ada: Redux(nocko.se)
97 points by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago|27 comments
65.
by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago
Great blog post ! One thing I wonder as a compiler head though is, what is the granularity of this stuff ? Is it per-file or per-function, or even per block ? If it's finer than per file, how do you do the tree diff ? Do you parse whol
66.
by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago
> The definition is very simple - the inference engine must use nontrivial inference rules to reconstruct the types. Where exactly is this rule coming from ? What is the source of your definition ? And if it is the authoritative definiti
67.
by Raphael_Amiard 10y ago
That's a completely arbitrary definition, and it is wrong. Type inference limited to the initialization point is still type inference, and actually most languages before Rust and Swift that have local type inference (C#, D, C++11) are
68.
Make with Ada: From bits to music(blog.adacore.com)
2 points by Raphael_Amiard 11y ago|0 comments
69.
by Raphael_Amiard 11y ago
That is awfully cool stuff, thank you for that ! but to be honest none of that is really specific to assembly. You can do the same thing in C/C++/Ada/Rust/pick your favorite systems language, or even in a higher level la
70.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
why ?
71.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
This is pure argument from authority, but I'm gonna take the bait anyway. > Martin Fowler What has this guy done except writing books about "the best way to program" without ever designing a full system himself ? > Guid
72.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
Ok, makes perfect sense !
73.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
> For me the object system on Ocaml was just too much What do you mean by that ? The current consensus about the object system in OCaml is "don't use it", even if there might be cases where it will describe your system bet
74.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
> I guess forks don't actually copy the program counter so they'll have to go through main, right? This is the way the fork syscall works on all Unices, the fork will start execution right after the fork system call.
75.
by Raphael_Amiard 12y ago
Pascal actually predates ML and has this syntax too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_(programming_language)
76.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
Wow, so much resentment in this comment ! I for one think I did never fit into one or the other category, I'm an extrovert sometimes, and introvert at some other times. One thing is certain is, when I'm problem solving, I don&#x27
77.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
> How familiar are you with largish C codebases? Well I don't know, let's see some code for postgresql, a quite large C codebase. I took this file at random: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/blob&#
78.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
There are very real differences between Clang and GCC - not when you use them as a client , to compile your code in the CLI, where gcc did indeed make big improvements in the areas it was not as good as clang, and was already pretty kick a
79.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
Ada would have been a good one, and mature enough. :)
80.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
This is exactly the field that I'm working on, so I'm quite interrested by this. In my opinion, the problem is more of a tools problem than a language problem : One language that has one of the most interresting support for this k
81.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
Thanks for this update ! Looks like an interesting project, although i think this kind of information should really be on your website, and not lost in some HN comment, rather sooner than later if you want to create a bit of interest around
82.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
Not really. If you want to compile down to Lua you have to either : 1. Accept Lua semantics (for example, numeric semantics) 2. Accept a (severe) performance hit in thoses cases where you want to have different semantics. Disclaimer : I act
83.
by Raphael_Amiard 13y ago
About "On Lisp" and "Lisp in small pieces", the author has the order backwards, "On Lisp" is a much easier book to apprehend, and deals with less advanced concepts. In "On Lisp" you'll learn how
84.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
To save anyone the trouble, this project is totally empty yet. It doesn't say anything about the ability of the owner to port F# to the JVM, but just know that it is just a readme, three almost empty java classes, and the beginning of an AN
85.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
Now i'm gonna say that plain and clear : I don't care which wins, between PNacl and asm.js, i just care that one or them wins, and gets in every browser with decent performance. Both approaches have their merits and drawbacks, I personnally
86.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
> I have no idea why Mozilla was so resistant to pnacl Pepper for one is a pretty good reason IMHO
87.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
> Don't see OpenGL 4+ making it to asm.js It won't make it into asm.js anyway, but into the WebGL spec.
88.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
> with the new precise GC The new GC is still not a precise GC, it's still conservative and non-tracing, just "more precise" (probably means they refined their heuristics) so you should probably not call it a precise GC.
89.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
You have got the scale in reverse. From the article : "The score is essentially runs/second: the number of times you can run the benchmark in one second. For all scores, bigger is better " So, no, dart2js is actually slower than hand writt
90.
by Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
The author is consciously using exceptional with another accepted meaning of the word (rare). And you are (consciously or not) at the same time misunderstanding him and being condescending, while adding strictly nothing to the discussion.

More ›