jjnoakes

55 ms·

691.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
The upside of an external service (even an embedded library if you want to go small, like sqlite) is that it handles the hairy persistence problem for you. If you keep your data in memory, you may eventually want to store it somewhere so yo
692.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
If you like C#, have you tried F#?
693.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
In which case you just roll them back to a pre-infection state, since you have history.
694.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Sorry, that's not correct. http://spacemacs.org/doc/FAQ "Space Macs"
695.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
So put a ref or a box in your optional.
696.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
It wasn't the word "quit" that was being objected to though; it was your equating quitting to being homeless (in the very same first post in this thread) and then further saying you think many others would also rather quit an
697.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
You can say you'd choose to be homeless all you want, but saying "many" would do the same I think is being a little too dramatic. And quitting your job (as you now point out, but didn't originally) is much different from
698.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Let's tone down the drama a little; I am willing to bet there aren't many people at all who would literally choose to lose their home versus work with a technology they don't like (even if for valid reasons, and even if those
699.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Quick note on the welcome page of browserless.io: "then browserless if for you" should read "then browserless is for you".
700.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Modern brk() can return -1 to indicate there's insufficient space above the current break address to allocate the requested additional space. I assume "in the early days" brk() could also fail to allocate space (after all the
701.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
They explained their justification; if they don't want random people on random forums disagreeing with their justification because it wasn't complete enough, they are free to make it more complete.
702.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
I agree. Fun read and cool hack, but it definitely feels like they are stretching to justify the more fun of the two options (spend time on this or spend time fixing the root cause).
703.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Because someone you trust can compile and verify that the source they audited matches the binary you got from the app store.
704.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
I don't agree. With proper design a zero day in a web-facing framework should not automatically expose a full database of sensitive user information to the internet.
705.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
(Not OP) OP probably means as emails are forwarded and appear in Fastmail, OP goes to the sender of the email and lets them know about the new email address (so they aren't sent to gmail in the future).
706.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Not even implicitly?
707.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Not if process limits are set.
708.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
The system's C library would use the syscalls directly and the application would use the C library routines. So if/when the OS updates the syscall ABI, it would also update the system's C library to use the new syscalls, and
709.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
If your warnings policy isn't useful for developers it isn't a good policy. And the translation strategy understand discussion here isn't dangerous.
710.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
There are two possibilities the compiler is faced with, that the function pointer is null or that the external function was called and the function pointer is set to a concrete function. Since the null pointer option would lead to undefined
711.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Warnings are ignored because it's too hard or not possible to configure the compiler to only issue the warnings a particular developer finds useful and actionable. Adding more warnings, especially for silly corner cases like the exampl
712.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
If the variable has a null value and the call is invalid then the compiler isn't required to compile it to anything specific; this includes the idea that the compiler isn't required to compile it to a jump-to-address-zero.
713.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
It depends on your definition of dangerous. And eliminating false positives in warnings is hugely important. Too many important warnings (more important than this one) are ignored today because people get desensitized as a result of so many
714.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
The compiler doesn't know the pointer isn't set, only the linker may know that. So you'd have to put a whole lot more smarts into multiple tools to get that warning. I'm not convinced it is useful.
715.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Because, after inlining and macro expansion and other passes, you'd get warnings about everything under the sun and they would be useless.
716.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
The proper place to put those checks is before the undefined behavior would be invoked, not after.
717.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Not sure how the topic veered; this thread was about the difference between BSD+Patents - Patents vs MIT and the two being less equal (in my opinion) than first posited, because the +Patents and -Patents don't cancel out to equal the i
718.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Right, if they were equal grants, I would too. But they aren't, that's the point.
719.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
Many argue that the difference is between the old explicit grant (which was one-sided) and the new implicit grant (which is more two-sided). Reverting to BSD doesn't remove the fact that the explicit grant was revoked, so the real comp
720.
by jjnoakes 9y ago
And have the name match? Tell me they check the name... Right?

More ›