kibwen

35 ms·

721.
by kibwen 10mo ago
And yet all that the aforementioned progress-cultists care about is being able to do a little more, even if it costs much more. The rate of return based on the effort invested is precisely the issue here.
722.
by kibwen 10mo ago
People are really out here acting like we didn't have a functioning economy before we invited ad companies in to parasitize global commerce. I don't give a fuck if it means "less discoverability", if I could snap my fing
723.
by kibwen 10mo ago
The irony is that supersonic jets don't have the range to realize the time savings over such long routes.
724.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Business passengers aren't out here paying for their own tickets. Their employers are paying for those tickets, so the question is whether or not companies care about the time their salaried employees spend in the air, when those emplo
725.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> But how is the internet economy supposed to function If the existence of a given industry requires the annihilation of individual privacy and the elimination of free thought, then that industry does not deserve to exist. Kill the ad
726.
by kibwen 10mo ago
That won't be any more of a problem than the support that every existing C or C++ compiler has for targeting different versions of the standard.
727.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Furiously seconded. Ads are just a tax that we pay both with our attention and then with our wallets. Every dollar that a company forks over to Google is a dollar they recoup by passing the costs on to you, for absolutely no benefit whats
728.
by kibwen 10mo ago
If the implication is that the ad industry helps to address the problem of buyers having imperfect information, that couldn't be more wrong. The entire point of the ad industry is to muddy the waters and psychologically manipulate cons
729.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Or in short: no, C is no better than Rust at gracefully recovering from stack overflow, either in theory or in practice.
730.
by kibwen 10mo ago
There's a powerful and outspoken modern cult that worships technological progress, but only for values of "progress" that meet a certain wow-factor/"shininess" threshold. The idea that such progress could ever
731.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Given the author's misunderstanding of what Rust provides, the most charitable interpretation is that they haven't updated the parts discussing Rust since 2017. If they had, it would reflect more poorly on them.
732.
by kibwen 10mo ago
If so, then it should be trivial for someone to introduce something like Rust's `unsafe` keyword in C such that the unsafe operations can be explicitly annotated and encapsulated. Of course, it's not actually this trivial because
733.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> If Rust can't handle that safely (not Rust "safe", but safely), it isn't appropriate for the job. Rust is no less safe at C interop than using C directly.
734.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> That's intentional; IOW the "most code" that is unable to handle OOM conditions are written that way. No, this is wishful thinking. While plenty of programs out the are in the business of maintaining caches that could
735.
by kibwen 10mo ago
For replacing a Python project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise 0% of your code. For replacing a C project with Rust, unsafe blocks will comprise about 5% of your code. The fact that the percentage is higher in the latter case doesn&#
736.
by kibwen 10mo ago
This article was written nine years ago, when Rust 1.0 was two years old, by an author who spent a small (but nonzero) amount of time evaluating Rust.
737.
by kibwen 10mo ago
C's syntax is pretty lacking by modern standards, requiring gross things like The Lexer Hack to resolve ambiguities that other languages just don't suffer from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexer_hack . To s
738.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Sure, which is a perfectly acceptable default considering that most code is not in a position to observe allocation failures (because of OS-level overcommit, which is nearly always a good thing), and furthermore most code is not in a positi
739.
by kibwen 10mo ago
It's nice that they don't dismiss out-of-hand the idea of using a language other than C (the conclusion is far less dogmatic than the editorialized title here suggests (the actual title of the page being "Why Is SQLite Coded
740.
by kibwen 10mo ago
None of Rust's language features allocate; not arrays, not closures, not iterators. Everything is stack-allocated by default. Rust code doesn't malloc unless you use a library that calls malloc; in other words, exactly like C. Rus
741.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Energy is the next Space Race, and Trump has already conceded. The US will run out of oil-rich countries to invade before China runs out of sunlight.
742.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> Apple has deprioritized backwards compatibility, not user choice. ¿Por qué no los dos?
743.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Yes, we can all look forward to the breathless bots lauding Apple's visionary hardware prowess when they remove that damned stupid notch ten years from now, while replacing it with something equally egregious.
744.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Dye was a symptom, not the cause. At a widespread organizational level, Apple just does not give a shit.
745.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> If you're a designer at a top 10 S&P 500 company making 6 figures, you owe it to yourself to have some love for your craft. I think you've unintentionally illustrated the root of the problem here. People motivated by pr
746.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Thanks, having a way to link directly to a certain configuration would be interesting.
747.
by kibwen 10mo ago
You don't need to abuse comments like this for Rust, because it supports shebangs directly.
748.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> In fact, take any C program with UB, compile it, and get a dangerous executable. Now disassemble the executable, and you get an equally dangerous program, yet it doesn't have any UB. I'd put it like this: Undefined behavior
749.
by kibwen 10mo ago
> The JPL C rules are quite old, but avoiding dynamic allocation outside initialization is am considered best practice for spaceflight software regardless of language. The rules are written with the historical context of C making it to
750.
by kibwen 10mo ago
Those guidelines are quite clear that they're written specifically in the context of the C programming language, and may not make sense in other contexts: "For fairly pragmatic reasons, then, our coding rules primarily target C a

More ›