ccommsxx

5 ms·

1.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I don't think you need a good understanding of C++ to appreciate these features per-se. Only if you want to make a statement like "X is an improvement over C++ because of these". For example, enforced const-ness/immutabi
2.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
As far as I understand, there is no accepted formal specification or even single source of truth for what the rust community thinks are the "rust memory safety guarantees". Only a large number of people that have completely convin
3.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
You took my post as saying "all systems code should be written in C and that should always stay that way because people don't make mistakes". However, that is not at all what I said (also see other replies). What I said was t
4.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Again, the assertion that all code written in rust is automatically "safe" (let alone correct) is false unless you say what precisely you mean with "safe" in very specific terms. While there are some ways in which rust i
5.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
>> Spend the next 5 years learning the ins and outs of C++, [..,] Spend a single month learning Rust. Play with it for another month or even two just to be sure. Hopefully after the 3rd month, they'll be 100% certain that their c
6.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Well, I agree with you on practically everything you said. Just for the record, I never intended to imply that somebody should not criticize their tools until they fully mastered them and I certainly don't claim to have done so. I just
7.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I feel you're missing my point. The article doesn't mention rust but my comment was phrased in the context of the current rust craze on HN. As I said, I agree with you and the author that all of us do inevitably make mistakes. I a
8.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
The worst thing about these kinds of articles is the troves of junior programmers that never touched systems programming with a stick before but will read this on hackernews today and sit in the office tomorrow lecturing seasoned coders how
9.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Actually I remembered now that the last time I worked with the MySQL protocol (~2014) I had a similar problem: Some of our servers were still running an old version of MySQL so the client had to be backwards compatible. However, this old ve
10.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Turns out that all of this stuff has apparently been deleted from the official docs some time ago, so that's probably why you didn't find it :) (see sibling comment). When I did a quick google to pull up the docs that I knew I had
11.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I can see what parents issue was now :) I had a look at the doxygen and all the goold old protocol documentation seems to be deleted/missing from the "official" documentation website. How come -- I found it really useful? -
12.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Take a closer look at the MySQL documentation. You dont have to reverse engineer anything - it's all there and documented (source: wrote a client impl based on the docs) http://imysql.com/mysql-internal-manual/clie
13.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
50GB of files in the 50KB-inf range can be at most 10e5 files, not 10e7. (10e7 would be 5TB of 50KB files)
14.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
But how? Where is the opt-in? Is including the javascript from ampproject.org considered an opt-in to give gogole a license to republish your copyrighted content? There is no notice or terms and conditions/license or any kind of other
15.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I don't really get what you're trying to say. Are you defending the fact that you benchmarked whats essentially a "function() { return 1; }", called that a "database operation" and then proceeded to claim to ha
16.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
Look not to sound harsh but since you're claiming the "80mm ops/sec" as a technical achievement "not possible with other databases" I found it to be fair to actually review the benchmark you linked. What you&#x
17.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
We're getting even better numbers on other devices: Android phone, ~5M ops/sec. Macbook Air, Chrome, ~30M ops/sec. Macbook Pro, Chrome Canary, ~80M ops/sec. Lenovo netbook, IE6, ~100K ops/sec
18.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
I've been waiting for a comment on why re-hosting verbatim copies of the original content by google is not considered copyright infringement? How come there seems to be no discussion on this at all?
19.
by ccommsxx 9y ago
looks like this contains a bunch of creative commons (CC-BY-SA) content ripped from wikipedia without proper attribution. please add the missing attribution https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pixel_geometry_01_Pengo.j..