hp

8 ms·

31.
by hp 9y ago
re: other languages: yes, there's a list of implementations in the typesafe config README
32.
by hp 9y ago
I'm pretty sure the last value wins, but maybe don't understand what you mean.
33.
by hp 9y ago
I would say HOCON isn't JSON for humans, it's config file for humans. The features are all about building up a config in a DRY way and merging overrides with defaults and overriding with env vars and stuff like that. It's spe
34.
by hp 9y ago
there's also a little blurb at https://github.com/typesafehub/config#rationale-for-supporte...
35.
by hp 9y ago
I think this is reasonable in some contexts but it depends. Often the configuration is done by a different person or in a different context than the development. The configure-er may or may not be a programmer and the deployment environment
36.
by hp 9y ago
https://blog.ometer.com/2015/09/07/json-like-config-a-spectr... I wrote HOCON and also the above comparison post.
37.
by hp 9y ago
I designed the HOCON format. Here is my take on the why not JSON / why not YAML questions: https://blog.ometer.com/2015/09/07/json-like-config-a-spectr... Short answer is "UX" There's also
38.
by hp 10y ago
You can run pkg-config yourself, the m4 macros are just for convenience. Look at the shell the macros expand to to see how to do it. Though I don't see the point in reinventing your own build system, exactly. Some people I trust seem t
39.
by hp 10y ago
I agree. Many mistakes would have been fine if there was a compelling reason for users to switch. Linux has been successful when it found a greenfield space: Android, Chromebook, x86 servers. The open source aspect isn't magic, it won&
40.
by hp 10y ago
Yep. it works well. https://wiki.gnome.org/ReleasePlanning/TimeBased
41.
Layout APIs don’t have to be terrible – lessons from Bokeh(blog.ometer.com)
1 points by hp 10y ago|0 comments
42.
by hp 10y ago
Legally "all rights reserved" is the default, until/unless you follow the legally appropriate ceremony to disable it. If you get the ceremony wrong in some way then you're back to "all rights reserved" in pract
43.
by hp 10y ago
This "license-free" text is a lot of needless confusion that will only serve to complicate anyone's life who needs to show this to a lawyer. The project could avoid the term "license free" and follow the guidelines
44.
by hp 10y ago
Seconded, it's a clean well-documented API with an implementation that's easy to read.
45.
by hp 11y ago
If you need a bunch of library features not found in the C standard, you could switch languages or you could ... use a library. "Use language builtin hash table or write your own hash table" are not the only two options as this ar
46.
The dangerous “UI team”(blog.ometer.com)
2 points by hp 11y ago|0 comments
47.
by hp 11y ago
Historically they have supported a lot of things the others didn't or didn't easily support: cross-compilation, changing the prefix/libdir/datadir, creating tarballs, "distcheck" to automatically check the tarb
48.
by hp 11y ago
all I'm saying is that "not hard" as you put it and "30% more code, transactions, and a complicated test harness" don't go together for me. If they do for you then enjoy :-)
49.
by hp 11y ago
Usually you have to use C when a large runtime (GC, rich standard library) is going to cause a problem. One common case of that is when you're making a least common denominator library that would be called by multiple higher-level lang
50.
by hp 11y ago
The reason it's hard is that everything you do has to become a "transaction" with the ability to roll back. Say you send five messages in a function, now you have to pre allocate all of them in order to cancel them all if any
51.
JSON-like config, a spectrum of under/overengineering(blog.ometer.com)
3 points by hp 11y ago|0 comments
52.
by hp 11y ago
It's Linus being hyperbolic. Read follow-ups in the linux-kernel thread to see more specifically what these benchmarks mean.
53.
by hp 11y ago
I would call it "dbus performance overhead is userspace library AND context switching" See: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1939651 Or really, it isn't "context switching"; it&#x27
54.
by hp 11y ago
Linus is mixing together two different performance issues. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1939651 kdbus is solving an "architecture" issue that would affect any binding, while his profile is esse
55.
by hp 11y ago
Here is the long version of that point: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1939651
56.
by hp 11y ago
kdbus really addresses a different performance issue than tuning mallocs and locks would. By tuning mallocs/locks/validation/parsing, you can reduce the overhead of each dbus send/receive, but with kdbus you remove half
57.
by hp 11y ago
The Linus profile is mostly a red herring here, because it is 1) a bad benchmark with a bunch of blocking round trips and 2) mostly profiling the gdbus bindings which are just one binding. For a more in-depth performance discussion of dbus,
58.
by hp 11y ago
the trace isn't dbus itself, it's a particular client program using the gdbus binding. The gdbus binding uses a lot of malloc and threads, and this particular client program is all blocking round trips.
59.
by hp 12y ago
It's probably straightforward to write an HTTP server which exposes everything on the bus as an http API, if someone wants a free project idea.
60.
by hp 12y ago
I should have mentioned here earlier, the original thought with dbus was that nobody would use libdbus directly; KDE would use an API more or less exactly like DCOP and GNOME would use soemthing like gdbus. For that reason, libdbus was lowl

More ›