lifthrasiir

38 ms·

691.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
How can you be that sure? :-) It is not even like that Maven repositories don't suffer from malicious packages with confusing names (for example, [1])... [1] https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-ai/issu
692.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
I'm worried that you want a "good" language at any circumstance, which is not even generally possible but also at odds with other aspects of languages. This still counts as minor for me because it is just slightly annoying an
693.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
That's an intention, not the outcome. You might assume that having both `@chrono/chrono` and `@chrono/tz` shows a clear connection between them, but such connection is nothing to do with namespace (the actual crate names are
694.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Ah, I should have clarified that. Yes, if stack overflow resulted in a trap you are mostly okay, given that the caller is eventually able to recover from the trap. But imagine that the trap didn't happen because the page table wasn&#x2
695.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Well, they do! What happens here is that `windows` crates are lightly processed even when they are disabled, for the reason JoshTriplett mentioned elsewhere. Such "light" processing is negligible in practice, but technically all t
696.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
> There's no standard way of doing file watching across BSDs, Mac OS and Linux. You are correct, but that's about the only divergence matters in this context. As I've noted elsewhere, you can't even safely use `char*`
697.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Hence "variants". Many other aspects, including the very fact that you can safely use `char*` for the file name, are shared.
698.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
> Why not? I believe you are proposing a language-based security (langsec), which seemed very promising at first but the current consensus is that it still has to be accompanied with other measures. One big reason is that virtually no pr
699.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Not to downplay QBE, but the initial goal of QBE was to provide 90% of the performance in 10% of the code, until it was changed to 70%. You generally don't know how much of Rust (or anything else) is possible without actually trying.
700.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
I personally use two conditionals for such case. Yes, I might have written Rust too long to say this but it is more like a minor ergonomic fix and any solution should be generalizable into other use cases. The eventually accepted syntax, `i
701.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
> In my experience, [patch] doesn't cut it or compare. AFAIK what Maven does is an exclusion of dependency edges , which is technically an unsafe thing to do. Cargo [patch] is a replacement of dependency vertices without affectin
702.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
I recall that I was very surprised to hear that Go standard library has extensive cryptographic stuffs. Generally that would be very unwise because they will become much harder to change or remove in spite of security issues. Turns out that
703.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
`if some_var.is_some_and(|x| some_expr)` is the current way to do that. It is less flexible and doesn't actually bind `x` into the conditional body (hence the proposal) but works today.
704.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Isn't that trivial? Just use Rust but reject any occurrence of `async` or `await` in your code or dependencies. Rust doesn't even force the use of async code for certain features in its standard library.
705.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
See my other comment about the inexactness of 4M LoC figure. The total amount of true dependencies would be probably a tenth of that, which is still large but much more believable.
706.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
> The single-header libraries that are popular in the game programming space (stb_* [2], cgltf [3], etc) as well as of course Dear ImGui have been some of the most pleasant ones I've ever worked with. The mainstream game programming
707.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
You are comparing a bicycle and a car; while you might only need a bicycle for your daily life, they are not directly comparable. BSD, Mac OS and Linux share the same interface that approximates POSIX---so it only supports a single platform
708.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Zig is already far more complex than what was originally presented anyway, while Rust 1.0 and the current Rust are mostly identical. (Pre-1.0 versions of Rust were heavily changing and overwent at least two or three extreme changes that mak
709.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
At least in my experience, Go packages and Rust crates are much coarser than NPM packages. (Look at actual direct and indirect dependencies in cargo-watch to judge it by yourself.) I think Go prefers and actually has resource to keep mostly
710.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Agreed, though by "parsing" I meant to include easy steps like cfg checks. In fact, cfg checks should probably be done at the same time as parsing and disabled items should be discarded as soon as possible---though I don't kn
711.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
I consciously remove and rewrite various dependencies at work, but I feel it's only a half of the whole story because either 1K or 4M lines of code seem to be equally inaccurate estimates for the appropriate number of LoC for this proj
712.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
The exact size of the `windows` crate depends on feature flags, because parsing 2.2M lines of code is always going to be very expensive even when you immediately discard them.
713.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
This has been my experience as well. I previously used cargo-zigbuild for packaging at work (and contributed both to cargo-zigbuild and Zig as a byproduct), and I still had several troubles that I had to analyze and tackle in spite of them.
714.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
It wasn't even intentional for Zig at the beginning, though. And any such solution should be usable across all platforms, while Nix on Windows is still not remotely usable (the latest attempt seems to be [1]). [1] https://la
715.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
The problem here is, of course, that the definition of "forking" is missing from the license. It is evident that two reasonable definitions for "forking" exist in this context (however you feel about Github's takeov
716.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
See my other comment for the result from ImageMagick, which shows little difference regardless of the orientation. For sips, there is a possibility that chroma subsampling impacted the result (because there are two different scaling factors
717.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Not just that, but the Exif orientation can be used to do the lossless rotation nowadays. (It's really the postprocessing step, but that step is now widely implemented.) This approach has no MCU limitation and even is honored by JPEG X
718.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Not really surprising, given that the original image seems to be compressed very conservatively: 13,290,914 original.jpeg 15,357,049 magick-q99.jpg 13,323,544 magick-q98.jpg 12,197,196 magick-q97.jpg 10,745,457 magick
719.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
> I don't see a reason why uploaded files couldn't be (re)compressed on the server. The reason why would be of course the computational expense and latency in the package availability, which will vastly limit the algorithm choi
720.
by lifthrasiir 2y ago
Ah, that's a good news to hear. I felt that Zig is already quite useful at least for some uses and meant to say that merit alone doesn't imply a financial success (whatever it means), it'd be another story if the financial su

More ›