remexre

19 ms·

211.
by remexre 3y ago
the import syntax makes it possible for the browser to start loading dependencies as soon as the module has been parsed, before it finishes being compiled. the require function would force the browser to download the script being depended o
212.
by remexre 3y ago
tkinter is the Python one!
213.
by remexre 3y ago
Wouldn't those statics also be slated for removal with this change?
214.
by remexre 3y ago
What's the selling point of 64MB of RAM with a 1GHz CPU?
215.
by remexre 3y ago
Presumably MS has it in cold storage somewhere... Maybe it'll get open-sourced some day, but I'm not holding my breath.
216.
by remexre 3y ago
Sounds like the entire Midori project only ran for 15, and iiuc it got all of that on top of a memory-safe kernel that was reinventing the language it was written in as the project was going.
217.
by remexre 3y ago
I mean, this surely wouldn't be written as obviously as this in real code. It'd be somewhere in a data structure that packs to be able to fit better in a cacheline, and has something like: struct edge { struct node*
218.
by remexre 3y ago
Because if memory is a big array of bytes and pointers are indices into that big array, that should be numerically valid. And indeed, if instead of making xs and ys separate arrays, one writes: int zs[20] = {0}; int *xs = &z
219.
by remexre 3y ago
Agree that C is easier to explore the concepts in, but knowing enough C to know why e.g. [0] gets the behavior it does is IMO not useful if the goal is to learn the _concepts_ before switching to a language that doesn't do this kind of
220.
by remexre 3y ago
"to continue to Qwiklabs," which is what you get when using Google to auth to 3rd-party services, not 1st-party ones
221.
by remexre 3y ago
> Now imagine tightening those restrictions a bit. Yep, that's one approach, though that's just as hard to compile as one that is defined to trap and end execution on an out-of-bounds write. As I said up-thread, it's possi
222.
by remexre 3y ago
> That doesn't sound like it lets me increment any stack address I want and store into the resulting pointer. Why not? > And are return values still on the same stack? Other implementation-defined things might have addresses too,
223.
by remexre 3y ago
> Now what happens, if we're trying to define behavior? The cell whose address is three billion greater, mod the size of the address space, now has a value of 20? > If the semantics aren't a direct translation into CPU opcod
224.
by remexre 3y ago
In my example, the variables are assumed to be addressable, only the address of x was passed via the stack. Dunno what you mean about having no rules imposed on your code -- you can define the semantics of the language formally and execute
225.
by remexre 3y ago
There's an area of memory into which variables with automatic storage duration are allocated at implementation-defined addrs, at any point exactly those variables have addresses.
226.
by remexre 3y ago
Standard Forth, to my knowledge, doesn't have UB and consequently doesn't allow the optimization. That'd just be : foo CELL + 20 SWAP ! ; there. Machine languages also generally don't have this kind of UB, and d
227.
by remexre 3y ago
That's it -- the optimization is legal because there's no way foo() could modify y, because any (&x)[1] = 20 shenanigans would be UB. This is how UB is used in optimizations; it's (usually) not that the compiler is findin
228.
by remexre 3y ago
Should a compiler be allowed to optimize: int x = 0; int y = 42; foo(&x); bar(y); to: int x = 0; foo(&x); bar(42); without performing analysis on foo? If so, how can that optimization be legal w
229.
by remexre 3y ago
> So you'd just need a model that can take a textual description of the algorithm as input, and spit out a list of logical errors/flaws. Right, I'm saying that this is the thing that's dissimilar from handwriting reco
230.
by remexre 3y ago
I think you're accidentally making a jump in meta-levels: The equivalent of an existing handwriting recognizer for e.g. RSA wouldn't be a model that tells you how to crack RSA, it'd be a model that _does_ crack it (maybe by r
231.
by remexre 3y ago
As an aside, to what degree does WASI exist _now_? The spec seems to be in a state of flux as to what the language the spec is written in is, and the language new proposals are written in seems to have grown futures? On the other hand, as f
232.
by remexre 3y ago
There's no way the Tariff of Abominations will actually _pass_!
233.
by remexre 3y ago
"Anonymous Authors" is typical for a pre-print that might be sent out for blind peer review.
234.
by remexre 3y ago
Huh, didn't the best-forgotten BeanShell [0, 1] do a similar thing with the "structs are just another kind of function"? [0]: https://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=274 [1]: http://beanshell.or
235.
by remexre 3y ago
I thought it runs setup.py
236.
by remexre 3y ago
It'd make the chips easier to design, I guess. Maybe motherboards and BIOSes too? I could imagine a more user-noticeable effect in VM cold-start times, perhaps, though I'd think physical hardware boot times would still be dominate
237.
by remexre 3y ago
> Something like this is the only thing that would save the x86 architecture before ARM inevitably took over. Eh, this feels like a rounding error in ISA desirability compared to pointer authentication, or something like CHERI. Sure, it&
238.
by remexre 3y ago
You can't specialize a generic algorithm for specific operations and data structures; in C++ terms, it gives you overloading, not templates.
239.
by remexre 3y ago
> require the use of device trees I think that's the case where it's easy for a vendor to do so; see, for example: - https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/arch/arm64/bo... - h
240.
by remexre 3y ago
It's useful as a survey of (perhaps somewhat old) opinions about a topic; it's pretty useful as a collection of pros/cons, and imo interesting for its historical context besides.

More ›