Xeamek

12 ms·

61.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Samsung's skin for android is actually incredibly customizable (to the point you can individually pick color for each UI element separately), as well as including quite a few QoL upgrades that are missing on stock android. But ye, you
62.
by Xeamek 2y ago
You can change that buttons behavior. Not that it's a good feature, just an FYI
63.
by Xeamek 2y ago
There are a lot of valid cricotisms, but claiming Samsung products are 'the worse' is just.... To much.
64.
by Xeamek 2y ago
If "google stuff" was part of (open source) android OS, then sure. But it's not, it's exactly the same shovelware that any other OEMs push at You, except people give it a pass because "it's from google". M
65.
by Xeamek 2y ago
>They say "any and all third party app stores." Does that include app stores the user hasn't installed I don't see how it would even be feasible to share this data with non-installed stores, not to mention it being co
66.
by Xeamek 2y ago
I mean, technically 3rd parties can already scrap packages from Google and repost them through various channels. But yea, I find this point to be weirdest from all the ones that epic proposed.
67.
by Xeamek 2y ago
I don't understand this aproach. Ofcouse Epic wants to make more. So? Good changes are good changes, we should judge them on their own merit regardless of who are pushing them. Being 'sceptical' because the underdog is still
68.
by Xeamek 2y ago
>Epic’s proposal hurts device manufacturers: Part of the State AG settlement ensures that any app store is free to compete for placement on an Android device. But Epic’s proposal would cut Google Play out of this process, reducing compet
69.
by Xeamek 2y ago
>Epic’s proposal hurts the privacy of Android users: Under Epic’s proposal, Google would be forced to tell any and all third party app stores which apps a user has installed on their phone through Google Play. It would wrongly expose a p
70.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Is RAII even wanted? I mean, in the name, 'Resource acquisition is initialization' it talks about the initialization part. But while not super versed in cpp, it looks like what everybody wants is actually the de-initialization par
71.
by Xeamek 2y ago
That's truism, ofcourse there is no way to do something that is not impemented. The question is whether or not the fact of it not being implemented comes from problem difficulty, or designers explicit refusal to do so
72.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Comment above, mentioned borrowing while structs instead of borrowing memory. I believe this was once discussed under term 'partial borrows', but the "idiomatic" aproach is to 'just split your structs'. Which i
73.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Except Rust's unsafe is even worse then any other 'unsafe' languages. And while you can technically prototype in a other language, speed of iteration is always a bottleneck. The only way to escape it is if You are an about ma
74.
by Xeamek 2y ago
There are restrictions out on You by the borrow checker to ensure safety, and then there are restrictions put on You by rust design team 'just because'. Again, the former are fine, it's the latter I have a problem with.
75.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Again, restrictions that are forced you for a price of safety are one thing. But what I'm complaining about are restrictions that don't have to be there to get borrowchecker working, but rather are there because designers arbitrar
76.
by Xeamek 2y ago
That's not how society progress. At some point you just disallow horses to go onto the high-speed road, and aren't waiting for literally every last farmer to sell their horse over a car.
77.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Eh, Rust would be fine if not for the fact that it's too opinionated. Unfortunately you can't just have Rust's safety checks, without opting into restrictions that Rust designers force onto You that aren't inherent to sa
78.
by Xeamek 2y ago
>I am sorry but my observarion is that Nim and LLVM and dare I say even GC-less Java all achieve the same performance as C This is just false. Sure, they probably are 'close enough', but you can't claim the performance is
79.
by Xeamek 2y ago
>What projects need manual memory management Games. Big/specialiased games to be precise, as for smaller projects managed language offer good enough performance.
80.
by Xeamek 2y ago
For everything? Obviously no. But for all the crazy optimizations modern compiler do, I don't see how marking pointers for more then couple of them in a raw is that crazy
81.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Apparently Apple and Intel do, since they introduced those changes into their silicon
82.
by Xeamek 2y ago
I mean sure, I don't doubt 99% of end-user programmers wouldn't look twice at something like this, but compilers designers probably would care. And it's not like the companies arent trying this idea (again, M1 exploit). But f
83.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Why cant we 'simply' get processor extension to mark data as pointer so that the prefetcher would actually know what to fetch. From my understanding this is what led to the recent 'unpatchable' exploit in Apple's M1
84.
by Xeamek 2y ago
What device was this benchmark run on?
85.
by Xeamek 2y ago
It's unsafe to do that, but it's not UB
86.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Yes, I know it's not possible for a specific c++ dev to do such checks, as compilers can optimize them away. What I meant is “we (as in) the c/c++ community (or rather the specification committee)” could tomorrow decide that, let
87.
by Xeamek 2y ago
Like?
88.
by Xeamek 2y ago
What do you mean? Just check if it's not null?
89.
by Xeamek 2y ago
It's not like UB is some magic functions that gets called when encountering UB. Every UB could verry well be wrapped in error checking and we could have 0 UB out there. We don't do that, but that's because of (our) choice, no
90.
by Xeamek 2y ago
It doesn't 'invoke' undefined behavior in the sense that it calls some function 'doRandomShit()'. What happens is: Compilers sees unreachable and assumes that this codepath will never run, so it just yeet it out of

More ›