tobias12345

9 ms·

1.
by tobias12345 4mo ago
True, you have few external dependencies... but you have random code thrown into your repository in the form of vendored 3rd party libraries, header only libraries, and bits and pieces copied from somewhere. Of course you also get huge kitc
2.
by tobias12345 6mo ago
To handle supply chain attacks, you need to know where yiur code comes from. That is often not a given when working with languages where it is easier to copy and paste in code from random other projects. I have seen so must stuff copy and p
3.
by tobias12345 6mo ago
I doubt that ideomatic code is easier to write in C once you switch to Fil-C. Your code will just get killed by the runtime whenever it does something it should not do (and the compiler does not catch). You need to think about that stuff wh
4.
by tobias12345 6mo ago
"Memory safe" means that there are no memory safety issues. One of the most critical areas targeted by exploits is just gone. And this in turn leads -- according to the numbers published by Google -- to a severe reduction of explo
5.
by tobias12345 7mo ago
Yeap, systemd is just another init system existing on a level playing field. They just dare to be successful by tackling problems that people have today over trying to deliver solutions designed in 1989.
6.
by tobias12345 1y ago
How will porting a single concept like `defer` from zig, a language that is not memory safe, to C and C++ make those memory safe? `defer` is a poor man's RAII. C++ has had RAII since the beginning, and C++ is still not considered memor
7.
by tobias12345 1y ago
> we talk about supply chain attacks, a thing that Rust with Cargo falls deep into. How so? By listing all dependencies in an easy to digest way? Making it hard to have a dependency does not stop devs from reusing code, it just leads to
8.
by tobias12345 1y ago
Sean Baxter stated that he is not working on Safe C++ anymore, so that proposal is dead. But is somebody still working on safety profiles? I have not noticed and profiles related paper seeing updates since Hagenberg. Herb just wrote in his
9.
by tobias12345 2y ago
Does it matter whether it is a common class of bugs or a not so common one? The point is, this is a class of bugs you do not have when picking a different language. C++ claimed for decades to be about eliminating a class of resource managem
10.
by tobias12345 2y ago
This has been going on for over a year now. Any progress in C++ land towards more memory safety?
11.
by tobias12345 2y ago
Nope, editions cover that use case nicely: Rust breaks things every three years -- without breaking existing code. Basically you have to opt in your project to the new normal. All your projects dependencies can opt in, too, whenever they wa
12.
by tobias12345 3y ago
RAII is great, but unfortunately it breaks down when the resource it manages leaks out of the RAII type. E.g. Whenever handing out the raw pointer stored in a unique_ptr, the code receiving that raw pointer can delete it, which will very li
13.
by tobias12345 3y ago
I am not arguing that there is a lot of C++ code and that this code will be around for a long time. But I would prefer to see C++ as a language with a future and not as the language some well-paid dinosaurs use to keep the legacy code-base
14.
by tobias12345 3y ago
So your argument is: C++ will be a great legacy language and we will enjoy its memory bugs for decades to come? I really hope it can do better than that. Note that Window ships a kernel driver written in Rust already, Linux (== ChromeOS and
15.
by tobias12345 3y ago
There is more out there than C++ and Rust, but yes, if you are stuck with C++, then you have no option but to wait for a couple of years and start to rewrite wehn C++ is ready. I seriously hope all your competition is in a similar situation
16.
by tobias12345 3y ago
> There is no "rewrite it in another language" option. How about "Wrap your C++ code in FFI wrappers and use it from a safer language"? It is conceptually not much different to "rewrite all your C++ code to be pr
17.
by tobias12345 3y ago
Which option? To write wrappers now instead of later? I just see no way to be able to use current C++ code in a profiles world without wrappers or even a rewrite. For some code with decent semantics, a modern enough code base and clean AP
18.
by tobias12345 3y ago
I am disappointed: I have to wait a few years for the C++ committee to define profiles. Then a few more years for tooling to become available. Then a few more months for the tooling to become interoperable enough to actually be used in exis
19.
by tobias12345 3y ago
C++ did a lot to improve safety over the decades, but it seems to have ended up in a local maximum. I doubt you can break out of that local maximum by doing all the things you did before. Something needs to change, backward compatibility wo
20.
by tobias12345 3y ago
There is accessibility using the Qt backend and I started working on accesskit integration, which should cover the rest of the backends. Yes, more work needs to be done there, but the architecture has proven that it works. Any help with acc
21.
by tobias12345 4y ago
The problem is that the different crates typically address certain sub-eco-systems and produce better results for that one dialekt spoken there. It is hard to generalize all that.
22.
by tobias12345 4y ago
I missed more: There are a lot of tools out there addressing special cases. Those typically address certain C++ sub-eco-systems that follow certain rules that make the mapping in some special cases better. Most of these are either built on
23.
by tobias12345 4y ago
There is still work to do to make Slint's accessibility support great, but this is an important first step: It validates the ideas we had to make Slint UIs accessible and puts a lot of infrastructure into place. So Widgets can now have
24.
Basic accessibility support for Slint UIs(github.com)
4 points by tobias12345 4y ago|1 comments
25.
by tobias12345 5y ago
Yes, there should be pre-build binaries of the viewer available. Right now there is not, but work is being done to cover the common platforms.
26.
by tobias12345 5y ago
Both are wonderful options for some use cases. I would also take one of thise approaches for the simple demo in the blog post. But the system UI that is also linked in there is something that goes beyond what you can do with e.g. zenity. Th
27.
by tobias12345 10y ago
By splitting / and /usr you create problems for packagers: Where do all the files need to go? Does cryptsetup need to go into /sbin or /use/sbin? Does network code belong into / or /use? Must users will no
28.
by tobias12345 10y ago
That would suck hard for me:-) I have a tmpfs on / and mount a ro-snapshot onto /usr. Fresh system in every reboot:-)