jjuhl

43 ms·

421.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Pragmatism. I like it.
422.
by jjuhl 11y ago
But Math.random() never promised to be that (reproducible that is). So changing the underlying algorithm is just fine.
423.
random Lameness Explained(elbeno.com)
1 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
424.
by jjuhl 11y ago
When we are talking about PHP I'd tend towards "no". The only thing I trust them to do reliably is "fuck stuff up and get things wrong". They've proven very capable at that over the years and I don't see a
425.
C++ Static Analysis Using Clang(ehsanakhgari.org)
1 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
426.
The C++ random Lame List(elbeno.com)
1 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
427.
Undefined Behavior *Can* Format Your Drive(randomascii.wordpress.com)
2 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
428.
STL Fixes in VS 2015 Update 1(blogs.msdn.com)
1 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
429.
Knowing Where to Type ‘Zero’(randomascii.wordpress.com)
2 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
430.
Thread Naming in Windows: Time for Something Better(randomascii.wordpress.com)
2 points by jjuhl 11y ago|0 comments
431.
by jjuhl 11y ago
When reviewing code you sometimes miss things. It's not an exact science. You also sometimes get a bad feeling without being able to say exactly what's wrong - it just feels/looks bad. That's when you should seek additio
432.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Seems like the OpenBSD guys are a little bitter. And rightfully so. OpenSSL has a lot of improvement work to do - both with their code base and their collaboration efforts.
433.
by jjuhl 11y ago
It may solve your immediate problem. But it's dangerous - there are too many hidden gotchas and situations where you have to know the actual implementation (which can change) to know what it does. It also breaks a lot of conventions es
434.
by jjuhl 11y ago
It's not just about education. PHP encourages bad practice. The language is implemented by people who haven't learned from the past 30 years of language design. It's made available to beginners and presented as "easy&quo
435.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Why, ohh why, won't this freak of nature (language) just die :-(
436.
by jjuhl 11y ago
That's just wrong and a really unpleasant slippery slope. I hope this causes a huge backlash from users and the internet at large.
437.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Luckily we have <random> in modern C++ these days. While they unfortunately left the default as implementation defined you can still manualy pick a good PRNG and random_device should give you good CSPRNG quality entropy in any sane im
438.
by jjuhl 11y ago
A sensible move.
439.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Setting up your own repo with push/pull via ssh is trivial. If your needs are just "company internal" that's the path I'd suggest.
440.
by jjuhl 11y ago
I very much agree with the confluence comment. The search feature sucks. It can't find anything even when search terms directly matches words in the content it sometimes still show completly irrelevant pages first. And the editor. Ohh,
441.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Using https (encryption) always is not just about keeping content secret. It is also about ensuring content was not tampered with and ensuring you got the content from the source you expect. In addition to that there's the whole debate
442.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Pretty cool (unfortunately also pretty slow - at least for me).
443.
by jjuhl 11y ago
The answer to that is (obviously - and yes, I realize you are trolling) that you dont.
444.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Here are some tools you should look into: Clang-tidy: http://clang.llvm.org/extra/clang-tidy/ Cppcheck: http://cppcheck.sourceforge.net/ Flint++: https://github.com/L2Program/
445.
by jjuhl 11y ago
If you don't know what it will do. Don't do it. Don't hide behind "I need this and this is how to install it". know what's going on or don't do it.
446.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Which is why you should trust nothing and verify everything.
447.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Common sense.
448.
by jjuhl 11y ago
Excellence in development and exellence in operations does not necessarily overlap. IMHO the whole "devops" term is bogus since it's just the worst of both worlds. You want experts at both ends of the spectrum, not a develope
449.
by jjuhl 11y ago
No. Because bugs. If you can write to arbitrary kernel memory you can do anything you like. Disable selinux; write funny messages to the console - it's all yours for the taking.
450.
by jjuhl 11y ago
I don't know the answer to your question. But if you can get access to a machine with a POWER CPU you could test it, since those CPUs contain hardware fixed-point arithmetic units.

More ›