nrclark

49 ms·

571.
by nrclark 8y ago
I thought this too for the longest time - turns out it's actually not true (assuming Wikipedia is to be believed). There aren't any age restrictions on what can be sold as 'lamb', so most American 'lamb' is wha
572.
by nrclark 8y ago
There's almost nothing we could do to this planet which would make Mars a more attractive option. I guess there's always a meteor/comet risk, but practically anything else still leaves Earth as a better option. Even if we all
573.
by nrclark 8y ago
Just chiming in to say that I use parameterized builds! I use them for controlling the version stamp in custom one-off builds, and also in giving devs the ability to build from their custom branches.
574.
by nrclark 8y ago
Not sure if I can speak for the HN crowd overall. I've never used Gitlab CI, so I can't comment on how I like it. But my experience with Jenkins has been good overall. Some thoughts: - Jenkins is FOSS, which I like. - If I w
575.
by nrclark 8y ago
I'm excited about this! I would love for pipelines to get easier to configure.
576.
by nrclark 8y ago
Agreed that this is an annoyance. Autoconf-generated configure scripts are definitely slow, mostly because they test a ton of things that probably don't still need to be tested. The overall system still provides a ton of value and a lo
577.
by nrclark 8y ago
Appreciate the response! Interesting to read. The Libsodium guys wound up doing exactly what you're suggesting, because of the impossibility of trying to package NaCl as-is. So they essentially had to re-do/duplicate all of his bu
578.
by nrclark 8y ago
You could absolutely write an Autoconf script that runs those tests by default, but has overrideable behavior. You can make custom Autoconf macros to detect whatever arbitrary thing you want. At the core, an Autoconf macro is just a chunk o
579.
by nrclark 8y ago
For what it's worth, I agree that Autoconf tests for a lot of things that aren't necessarily relevant today. I don't think I need to worry about the existence of <stdint.h> on just about any platform. But there ARE a lo
580.
by nrclark 8y ago
Why would somebody release software that they didn't want to see used? To your other point, Autotools is little crusty for sure. It's Yet Another Language to learn (and so is CMake), but it's really not as bad as people make
581.
by nrclark 8y ago
Let's say I'm writing firmware for a TV. Why wouldn't I want to use the chip's CPU to the fullest extent at runtime? That doesn't mean I want to compile my TV firmware _on_ the TV.
582.
by nrclark 8y ago
FWIW, I read through each of your links. They don't address cross-compilation at all, or the needs of software packagers. I can 100% promise you that somebody packaging this library for any Linux distro (or for a Yocto/Buildroot s
583.
by nrclark 8y ago
My job involves a lot of packaging/cross-compilation, and djb's libraries always seem consistently hostile to the lowly packaging engineer. Would it really be all that much work to package in autotools or CMake? Why do I need his
584.
by nrclark 8y ago
Did anybody else catch the part where this group is already selling cryptocurrency? Looks like yet another ICO scam to me.
585.
by nrclark 8y ago
What makes this different than a co-op, aside from the "definitely not a scam guys, honest!" overtones of selling unregulated stock disguised as tokens? That and hosting everything "on the blockchain" for some inscrutabl
586.
by nrclark 8y ago
this looks awesome!!
587.
by nrclark 8y ago
I wonder how much cache that CPU has, and how many memory channels? 28 cores don't do you much good if half of them are always blocked waiting for instructions.
588.
by nrclark 8y ago
Or lawsuits.
589.
by nrclark 8y ago
Try it blindfolded some time, with both wines at the same temperature. Unless one of them is a super-sweet wine (moscato, gewurztraminer etc), you might be surprised at the result.
590.
by nrclark 8y ago
Pro-tip right here.
591.
by nrclark 8y ago
A valid consideration, and one that I didn't test. I'll have to try it out on people some time!
592.
by nrclark 8y ago
It's crazy how much of the wine world is an 'emperor's new clothes' kind of situation. There was a study done a little while ago ( http://www.caltech.edu/news/wine-study-shows-price-influence... ) whi
593.
by nrclark 9y ago
that's actually pretty helpful! Do you know if there's an equivalent in the POSIX spec? I looked around for a while and didn't find one. I want my daemon to work on more than just Linux, so I'm trying hard to stick to pu
594.
by nrclark 9y ago
Sigaction is pretty cool. Signals still suck though, if you need to stick to the POSIX specs. It's crazy that so many standard library functions will fail with an EINTR errno if your program gets a signal while it's in a library f
595.
by nrclark 9y ago
Until you get far enough south.
596.
by nrclark 9y ago
For the Rustaceans out there, are there any plans to start getting Rust libraries packaged for Linux distros? Cargo is an amazing build system. But the last time I used it (which was maybe a year ago), I was struck by how tough it would be
597.
by nrclark 9y ago
I'll probably get some flack for this, but I'd like to put in a plug for autotools (if you don't need to target Windows). Autotools has really come a long way since the bad old days back in the early 2000s. It's got some
598.
by nrclark 9y ago
Scons and Cmake aren't too bad. With either one of them, you at least know that a team of developers and a large user-base have worked out most of the kinks. Honestly though, raw GNU Make isn't too bad either, except for the not h
599.
by nrclark 9y ago
Agreed on dummy files, that's one of my least favorite things about Make. If you structure everything right though, you can usually figure out how to do it with the actual input and outputs. GNU Make's documentation is very well w
600.
by nrclark 9y ago
Our company is in the same boat - we have this weird, custom package management system that's a franken-hybrid of shell scripts, vanilla Python, Scons, and CMake. Every time I have to do anything even slightly outside of the norm with

More ›