geocar

88 ms·

901.
by geocar 7y ago
> The entire Internet uses DNS for billions of hosts. To say it won't work for a tiny internal network seems a bit strange. Ok. Then look at it this way. A DNS server effectively has to look at its own hosts file and publish the res
902.
by geocar 7y ago
Nonsense. You already have something that copies the hosts file to every host. It does that check as a product of copying the hosts file. rsync is old, and even before that we had rcp! What you don't have, and have never had, is the ab
903.
by geocar 7y ago
What effect on sales did this have? I have a hard time believing those keyword terms are used by people in pipe.
904.
by geocar 7y ago
This doesn’t surprise me. I’ve avoided Cisco equipment since I wrote cdp-tools over a decade ago. During development (reverse engineering) lots of things I tried crashed switches and routers. No faith in anything Cisco makes after that. But
905.
by geocar 7y ago
For federated names DNS has won. There’s no point arguing how good or bad DNS is because it’s a necessary evil at this point. I wouldn’t use it in a new protocol or on a fully internal network though and that’s because nearly everything is
906.
by geocar 7y ago
Because I'm not speaking to someone who speaks that way. Arthur Whitney once wrote: One day I asked him, "Roger, do you do math in English or Cantonese?" He smiled at me and said, "I do it in Cantonese because it's
907.
by geocar 7y ago
If I can assume Bob has Alice's public key (and that DNS was gold and whatever; i.e. the same axiom ESNI has), then: - DNS lookup for _esni.domain CNAME _esni.cloudflare.net, - client connect to _esni.cloudflare.net via HTTPS and negot
908.
by geocar 7y ago
Not the person you’re replying to, but: > shouldn't we rather optimize and separate the high-bandwidth stuff, so we can keep using malloc-per-object for the unimportant stuff? If it helps, sure, but one problem that shows up nasty a
909.
by geocar 7y ago
People who deal in megabytes have different problems than people who deal in petabytes. Usually just turn it off. At least at first. Note I’m talking diagnostic here; If I need the log messages obviously I have to write a custom streaming
910.
by geocar 7y ago
Oh it so is! I can’t count the number of times I’ve gotten 20-50x speed ups just turning off logging. Assuming printf is free (or even cheap) is the sort of thing that’ll get you into trouble. It might not always matter, but when it does if
911.
by geocar 7y ago
Ok. I’ll add a point why 60 is chosen when I land.
912.
by geocar 7y ago
Well then you’re not using malloc() which is kindof my point. Or are you asking something else?
913.
by geocar 7y ago
I don't think so. The space-cadet keyboard had a FRONT key and it predates the canon cat by at least a few years: It literally referred to the characters on the front of the keycaps (as opposed to the top).
914.
by geocar 7y ago
malloc() has incomplete information. It doesn't know that this allocation of 0 bytes is soon going to balloon to a few GB in a future realloc(), so if it starts in brk, it'll mmap later and memcpy the data over. The good news is t
915.
by geocar 7y ago
I'm interested to know what you think is "grody". This is what I came up with: #define DO(...) for(long long _a[]={__VA_ARGS__,1,1,1,1},i=0;i<*_a;++i) \ for(long long j=0;j<_a[1];++j)for(long long k=0;k<_
916.
by geocar 7y ago
A forth interpreter is probably the simplest and most-common example of a two-stack system someone might be familiar with. Sometimes I'd like to push an event onto a queue from an interrupt (e.g. a signal handler) and the buffer size c
917.
by geocar 7y ago
> unexplained magic numbers Which "magic number" do you think was left unexplained? I thought I had got them all.
918.
by geocar 7y ago
I don't, at least not when I care about performance. stdio is a big unknown with highly variable performance across platforms and libc-versions.
919.
by geocar 7y ago
Apologies! I usually typedef long long J;typedef unsigned long long U; and that makes it a bit shorter, but I wanted each example to compile, and not to get bogged down on typedefs.
920.
by geocar 7y ago
Cool! I've often thought about the best way to do this, and your suggestion is compelling. I'm going to try it out.
921.
by geocar 7y ago
Thanks for giving this an actual shot. I appreciate it's alien tech, but it's something I've grown quite fond of over the last few years and I enjoy talking about it. > They did get me thinking why programming is the one t
922.
by geocar 7y ago
> Readability is defined by the fact that anyone who understands the language shouldn't need to "know how to read it". Perhaps then this isn't C, but a language compatible with (at least a few) C compilers. This langu
923.
by geocar 7y ago
> is unwarranted And yet accurate. People who follow trends are like other people who follow trends, at least in that way. They will never see something new so long as they do doing what everyone else does.
924.
by geocar 7y ago
The ability to read this includes the ability to read "some standard C programming style", and it's for that reason I find charity challenging. If saagarjha means here be dragons they should say so: Fewer people would misun
925.
by geocar 7y ago
> But what gets me is people pointing to this style of coding and feigning ignorance or surprise that others could find it troublesome and making a big point of saying "Well it's easy for me, I guess you're just not smart&
926.
by geocar 7y ago
There are plenty of other programmers just like you who can't read this. Most of them spend their time "programming" with stackoverflow on one screen and sublimetext (or whatever else is cool these days) on another and copy
927.
by geocar 7y ago
Sure. The variables x,y,z are used to describe the first, second and third arguments. This is a common convention, so you get used to it. tX, tA and ta are type enums. A1(f,b) is just a 1-ary function f with the body b; A2 2-ary, and A3 3-a
928.
by geocar 7y ago
Yes. That is exactly what I mean: Reading this requires no special effort, but then I know how to read it. This is clearly your lack of ability here.
929.
by geocar 7y ago
> The code is unreadable False. I can read it just fine. Ergo, it is readable. You cannot read it, and that is a different problem. > I wonder why Because there are benefits you do not understand. It is very strange to me that you a
930.
by geocar 7y ago
> It is plain to any developer False. I am a developer. It is readable to me. > I think in this case it falls on you to explain why you think it isn't Why code isn't unreadable? What a silly question! You simply don't

More ›