jnxx

19 ms·

181.
by jnxx 5y ago
Also, it is easy and much less disruptive to declare new features (and not the whole API) as unstable while they still may change, and promise stability for the rest.
182.
by jnxx 5y ago
> at the binary driver level there is no stability at all You are evading the argument, what we were talking about was stability of APIs in respect to the userland code. Linux never promised binary compatibility at driver level. Also, Li
183.
by jnxx 5y ago
> When libraries make backwards-incompatible changes it's usually because the original design was flawed in a way that made continuing to support it, while adding new features, infeasible. I think that "infeasible" is rare
184.
by jnxx 5y ago
That might be a real issue for people which strive for a high level of compatibility, such as engineers at Google, but I don't think it applies to less than 0.1% of compatibility-breaking changes. Also, such things are fixable if they
185.
by jnxx 5y ago
You can just fold the old interface with the old semantic into a special case of the new interface, and provide a wrapper function with the old signature. This avoids code duplication. > I also think the library author has the right to c
186.
by jnxx 5y ago
I second that. Also, semantic versioning requires documentation to give specific meaning to an interface.
187.
by jnxx 5y ago
> There's no way to entirely avoid breaking compatibility. Why?
188.
by jnxx 5y ago
I've come to the same conclusion. Infrastructure and libraries breaking backward compatibility should not happen, it is not a sign of technical quality. It is almost always possible to provide wrapper interfaces which contain the old b
189.
by jnxx 5y ago
> Most of the rest of us will move on since the conversions were not that hard and the improvements worth it and we were given 10+ years to do it. You are describing it as if it is for everyone easy to convert. That might be true for fas
190.
by jnxx 5y ago
> For most people "what their goals are" is just "high social status". My suspicion is that this is only an auxiliary goal to get something else - which might be some degree of material security. Especially in societi
191.
by jnxx 5y ago
That's no excuse to use pure quackery. It would decrease the reputation of a company - except that it is FB so there is nothing to lose, I guess.
192.
by jnxx 5y ago
What a load of crap. If I knew that a company uses stuff like this, I would just skip the application. Knowing that in comparison to companies where my qualification is what matters, this will lower my chances and thus is a waste of time. O
193.
by jnxx 5y ago
Following that, wouldn't it be more efficient if companies said from the outset what their rate is? That would be a lot more efficient. Of course, the money the company is able to pay depends on the process and the business environment
194.
by jnxx 5y ago
So, assuming this is all essentially right from the employers point of view, what can senior developers do to make the selection / hiring process more efficient for themselves? The thing is that there are a lot of spammy recruiters as
195.
by jnxx 5y ago
> "Smart" people would save and invest, and have better "pensions" than they'd have in the current system Well, if, and only if, their investments have positive gains. Also you can (depending on the country) pay
196.
by jnxx 5y ago
I know only part of the picture. But I suspect that the following factors are at least sometimes also in play: * Many company start software projects as greenfield projects which are written by young, inexperienced, and cheap developers. *
197.
Oscar, the Open Source Analysis Reporter for CPAP Sleep Apnea Treatment(sleepfiles.com)
3 points by jnxx 5y ago|0 comments
198.
by jnxx 5y ago
What I find very nice with the IDE is that it can directly display images as function results. That's useful for teaching but I think it might also be very handy for data visualization and symbolic representations. Perhaps even for deb
199.
by jnxx 5y ago
I can't talk about IDEs because I use Emacs for both languages, and it works well for me. Clojure and Racket have quite a few similarities. They are both relatively minimal, and are both Lisp-1 ( https://clojure.org/refe
200.
by jnxx 5y ago
I think both Clojure and Common Lisp are modern lisps too, both have large user communities. Common Lisp is mostly different in that it is much more agnostic than Scheme, for example it as no constraints in using imperative patterns. On the
201.
by jnxx 5y ago
There are several dimensions to this in Racket. For one, it has a platform-independent GUI library as part of the standard library, which Python (like most other programming languages) hasn't. That makes it interesting for writing GUI
202.
by jnxx 5y ago
They still seem to believe that what they did, increases the security of Linux. And comments still suggest the fix to make Linux less "open" to contributions. It does not seem to me that they have thought much about what they are
203.
by jnxx 5y ago
> * the kernel community prefers kludges over simpler, visibly more robust code if the latter has performance impact (The biggest example of this is of course choosing a monolithic kernel instead of a microkernel.) You should just run Mi
204.
by jnxx 5y ago
Here is an introduction by Peter Seibel: http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/beyond-exception-handling-co... (it is a chapter from "Practical Common Lisp", an really excellent book!)
205.
by jnxx 6y ago
> The kernel team obviously doesn't have sufficient resources to conclusively verify that every patch is bug-free, particularly if the bugs are intentionally obfuscated. Nobody can assure that.
206.
by jnxx 6y ago
What would be the security implications of these things: * a black hat writes malware that proves to be capable of taking out a nation's electrical grid. We know that such malware is feasible. * a group of teenagers is observed to drop
207.
by jnxx 6y ago
> It shows there is a problem with the review process if it is not catching 100% of this garbage. Does that add anything new to what we know since the creation of the "obfuscated C contest" in 1984?
208.
by jnxx 6y ago
> They could perform analysis of review/acceptance by looking at past patches that introduced bugs without being the bad actors that they apparently are. Very good point.
209.
by jnxx 6y ago
It is not hard to point a gun at someone's head. But let's assume your girlfriend points an (unknown to you) empty gun at your head, because she wants to know how you will react. What do you think is the appropriate reaction?
210.
by jnxx 6y ago
> Despite the positive underlying reasons I think that is thinking too kind of them. Sociopaths are often very well-versed to give "reasons" about what they do, but at the core it is powerplay.

More ›