boomlinde

3 ms·

1.
by boomlinde 5d ago
> You said Yes, which you didn't respond to until now. > And that’s far too broad in my opinion. Similarly, it's far too broad to say that it's "much less error prone" to use a more general allocation stra
2.
by boomlinde 5d ago
You didn't answer nor apparently read my question. You can just answer it in whatever terms you consider some piece of software to be an application when you say "systems programming languages shouldn't be used to create appl
3.
by boomlinde 5d ago
How many seems like an irrelevant question to me. If there are such software domains at all, Zig may be a compelling alternative to languages that don't have a standard library that lets you choose an allocation strategy freely. I also
4.
by boomlinde 7d ago
You disagree with a point I never made. My point is that they enable easier memory management, regardless of whether they're more performant. I really don't understand how that point didn't get across. You must simply not hav
5.
by boomlinde 7d ago
I don't know about more error prone. Benchmarks completely aside, freeing a batch of stuff you've allocated in a single place makes it easier to manage memory. I think it should be preferred wherever it's an option for that r
6.
by boomlinde 7d ago
What are the requirements and design constraints of an application? Please give a general answer that applies to all applications.
7.
by boomlinde 7d ago
> But a lot of real world software just isn't that simple. Zig doesn't force or even tends to prefer one way or another. If I want unassuming heap allocations that can be reclaimed in any order, there's an allocator for
8.
by boomlinde 11d ago
Took me half a second to realize I would probably start with "LFS :: Linux From Scratch is the main book, the base from which all other projects are derived."
9.
by boomlinde 16d ago
Here, this is standardized, and if a local subscription service provider wants to pull money from my account I explicitly grant them permission to do that, which I can revoke at a later point.
10.
by boomlinde 18d ago
> What might not be clear about this is that a struct loses runtime information. If you want to iterate a map, that's easy: call for (key, val) in map { .... If you want to iterate a struct ... get fucked? write a proc-macro? I do
11.
by boomlinde 20d ago
People don't generally refer to these old Windows games as "DOS games", though.
12.
by boomlinde 22d ago
So, as I said, a matter of priorities.
13.
by boomlinde 22d ago
> So, if you're going to have to rewrite your UI layer to disentangle it from your back-end anyway why not also bring it up to speed? So, if you're going to have to rewrite your back-end to disentangle it from your UI layer a
14.
by boomlinde 22d ago
I think you may be underestimating how important playing back and recording audio is for an application built for that purpose. This was already a widely adopted piece of software. It was my go-to for light audio work like trimming a sample
15.
by boomlinde 23d ago
Maybe a three-line npm package sneezed.
16.
by boomlinde 23d ago
I saw the Tantacrul video back when it was released. I think that's when I went ahead and bought myself a personal Reaper license. My thought then was: wtf are their priorities like if they'll focus on a complete overhaul of the a
17.
by boomlinde 23d ago
I've given up on Audacity because it hasn't kept up technically with how a typical home studio Linux system does audio, and looking at the change log it seems like they haven't addressed any of the problems I have with it in
18.
by boomlinde 23d ago
The humorous LLM-generated blurb Google frequently places before the useful search results once referred me to Grokipedia, an LLM-generated repository of vibe-facts seemingly created more to illustrate some reactionary point than to actuall
19.
by boomlinde 24d ago
Sure, maybe someone may enjoy Dwarf Fortress despite that, but as I recalled from my own experience, it wasn't despite it that I enjoyed getting into Dwarf Fortress, but in large part because of it. So are you wrong in saying generally
20.
by boomlinde 25d ago
> The "67 cents" part though is misleading imho. You can't extrapolate from there and think that investing say $100 will get you a lot better results. Nothing about saying that it cost 67 cents implies that it will. Know
21.
by boomlinde 25d ago
I remember the "onboarding experience" essentially being losing over and over again and learning from my mistakes, getting a little further or trying a new approach altogether on each new attempt. Maybe it's an acquired taste
22.
by boomlinde 25d ago
> but the former doesn't make sense to me; unless you're saying that there wouldn't be enough phonemes representable by the letters to define spellings for all English words? Then you're inventing a phonetic alphabe
23.
by boomlinde 26d ago
Sidenote, but what's with the ref=mdubakov.me query parameter attached to every link? Are there benefits of this over the "Referer" HTTP header other than trying to skirt around my configuration choice not to share my browsin
24.
by boomlinde 26d ago
Deliberate distractions from the functional end goal benefit other arts just as well, promoting lateral thinking. Brian Eno made a card deck of "oblique strategies" to help you out of blocks. https:/&#x
25.
by boomlinde 26d ago
Conversations like this are a dead end. You can't devise a phonetic spelling convention without using a phonetic alphabet. The reason you think that "le" makes sense and the person you are responding to thinks otherwise is th
26.
by boomlinde 27d ago
Yes, but your claim is that applications can still have arbitrary execution vulnerabilities only on operating systems that allow dynamic executable code . I am refuting that statement by showing that not allowing dynamic executable code is
27.
by boomlinde 29d ago
Again, this is a crash bug, and again, whether it's a "self-dos" isn't a quality of the bug or ffmpeg. The implications of the crash depends entirely on the implementation of the process it crashes. If I use ffmpeg as a
28.
by boomlinde 29d ago
That's not a quality of ffmpeg or this bug, but of the application you use it for. If you only expose your ffmpeg-based application to your own input then yes, of course it's a self-DOS. But if you, say, expose it as a web service
29.
by boomlinde 29d ago
It crashes because of input that should have been rejected for being invalid. How could that be construed as being benign?
30.
by boomlinde 1mo ago
> Writing hand crafted code for the sole use of an individual never happened. It seems bizarre in a way to see this sentiment on hacker news.

More ›