nanolith

23 ms·

151.
by nanolith 3y ago
For sure, if you can trust your partner to assist you with this, and if you can guarantee that your partner will not face legal consequences, this would be a great option. Dementia poses a legal wrinkle, in that in many jurisdictions, assis
152.
by nanolith 3y ago
It really has to be part of the routine, and there needs to be automated nagging in place to ensure that it goes off due to programmed conditions, and not due to neglect. I think this is especially important in cases of dementia. Daily rout
153.
by nanolith 3y ago
Well, I would strongly advocate that such a system be used only after a diagnosis, at which point, you would be placed on medications to slow the progression. At that point, this would be seen as a rather innocuous thing by family members,
154.
by nanolith 3y ago
I'm of the belief that in such a situation, a pre-cognitive decline "living will" or dead man switch is appropriate. If I were diagnosed with dementia, I'd build automation to ensure that I'd appear to die a natural
155.
by nanolith 3y ago
Sorry... had to come back for one last reply. > But if a person responds to any criticism of C with vitriol, one begins to think that person is invested in a belief that C is perfect. That was before I started responding in kind. > Yo
156.
by nanolith 3y ago
> > > Have you even used a proof assistant? > > Only daily. But, let's keep those unfounded assumptions coming... and > This is the sort of thing I'm referring to when I say that you respond with vitriol, by th
157.
by nanolith 3y ago
> > I fail to see what C has to do with the choice of build tools. > You are definitely smart enough to figure that out. Clearly not, because the features you enumerate with respect to Cargo aren't unique to Rust or non-existe
158.
by nanolith 3y ago
> > Didn't you just say that you didn't want to read about any other build system, as that would involve effort? > No, I did not say that, and you also know that. and > My goal is to be able to build my project with as
159.
by nanolith 3y ago
> > But, if this is the "Cargo is the best vs all others" debate... > It isn't. You could've fooled me with how uncharitable you are being here by blowing comments way out of proportion. > Only you have the p
160.
by nanolith 3y ago
> That's not my goal, and you know that. Didn't you just say that you didn't want to read about any other build system, as that would involve effort? Uh... okay. > The reason you aren't naming one is that they obvi
161.
by nanolith 3y ago
> ...and the point you're pretending you don't understand... You're making some very interesting assumptions about what I'm thinking here. > These exist... but you're not going to even mention any, because you
162.
by nanolith 3y ago
If your goal is "I want to use Cargo and nothing else because that would require effort to learn to type a different command", then use Cargo. But, there are similar build and package systems for C. Cargo is nothing special.
163.
by nanolith 3y ago
> Do you see the problem with what you're saying? No, I don't. At some point, you read documentation, or a tutorial, or example code to use Cargo. These exist for other build and package systems, some of which are clones of Car
164.
by nanolith 3y ago
If you're going to put words in my mouth, then there's no need for me to respond any further. If you are genuinely curious about build systems in any language, I can certainly help you. But, if this is the "Cargo is the best
165.
by nanolith 3y ago
First, I did not say anywhere in my reply, "as easy as Cargo". I said "similar to Cargo." Huge difference. C has been around for over 50 years. It predates many of the modern "everything including the kitchen sink&q
166.
by nanolith 3y ago
It is true that C does not have a single tool enforced by the language platform. But, there is plenty of excellent documentation available for using build and packaging tools of your choice to work similarly to Cargo.
167.
by nanolith 3y ago
Consider forking it and experimenting with it. The Linux kernel compiles just fine with clang / llvm. There are plenty of userland tools that compile and work just fine with musl. This should be possible to implement as an experiment.
168.
by nanolith 3y ago
For those who prefer init.d over systemd, there is also this version: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/stable/
169.
by nanolith 3y ago
The compiler and toolchain is a dependency like any other. Upgrading to a new compiler version is an engineering task just like upgrading a library version. It must be managed as such. If this leads to new errors, then this becomes part of
170.
by nanolith 3y ago
These are tools. How well they work largely depends on the discipline and processes followed by the development team using them. If the concern is that raw pointers can be extracted from controlled pointers, then the development team needs
171.
by nanolith 3y ago
Twitter is doing its best to paywall and authwall content. Fighting this is a losing battle. I think that the best alternative to Nitter is probably learning to live without Twitter. For the folks you used to follow, try reaching out to the
172.
by nanolith 3y ago
I recently introduced my wife to the process of creating a sourdough starter. We created our own over two weeks. I used the yeast and bacteria in the starter to jump start a crock of peppers that I'm fermenting to make hot sauce.
173.
by nanolith 3y ago
> But picking the next available address to attach to the symbol is not like that. > The compiler always picks that itself One of the best analogies I heard, years ago on IRC, is that good source code is like select cuts of meat and f
174.
by nanolith 3y ago
A declaration doesn't reserve an address. It just means that "x is a variable of type M." How this actually works depends on the compiler. Weird things happen to uninitialized variables during optimization. Basically, nothing
175.
by nanolith 3y ago
That's understandable, and I would suggest reaching out to the CBMC developers. It shouldn't be difficult to add an uninitialized variable pass to the solver. Practically speaking, -Wall -Werror should catch this. Any use of a too
176.
by nanolith 3y ago
Yeah... I'm not too happy with some of the choices made in C18 and C23. One of the reasons why I chose to standardize my C SAX-like parser on C18 for now was to avoid the Unicode complexity. There's also a widening feature gap bet
177.
by nanolith 3y ago
> SMT cannot solve cases where it simply cannot know what the length of an array is. Sure it can. It sets the array length to a non-deterministic unsigned integer, and then finds a counter-example where this array length is invalid. CBMC
178.
by nanolith 3y ago
I'm not aware of any language that can't be improved by this strategy. Amazon even added SMT solving tooling around Rust, because Rust's built-in safety guarantees aren't enough. I'd say that the added effort is min
179.
by nanolith 3y ago
As for standardizing on hardware and toolchain, what I mean is that I try to get projects to commit to using specific hardware and a specific toolchain. The goal is to limit variables for automated testing and analysis. OpenBSD, in particul
180.
by nanolith 3y ago
Sadly, I don't have a link for this yet. My goal is to write this up once I have a compelling example. In the meantime, check out my github. https://github.com/nanolith Currently, I'm feeding commits into libcpars

More ›