uecker

30 ms·

571.
by uecker 9mo ago
Sad is the low intellectual level of this discussion where people draw conclusions from insufficient understanding of the data (or more likely, they believe what they read somewhere without even looking at data - which I assume is the case
572.
by uecker 9mo ago
Again, this is a misleading argument. The low carbon footprint in France is the result form investments of the past, while Germany relied on coal and lignite for a long time and only started to transition to carbon-neutral renewables much
573.
by uecker 9mo ago
There is no spectacular success of nuclear power. It provides an irrelevant fraction of overall power in the world and time and money needed to scale it up would be immense. The France's nuclear industry is an economic disaster and the
574.
by uecker 9mo ago
Germany started out with a high amount of coal and lignite (as a domestic source of energy with many jobs depending on it). The carbon footprint dropped with the rollout of renewables according and will be very low once the transition to re
575.
by uecker 10mo ago
One should also point out that the household price is determined by many factors and does not reflect cost of generation.
576.
by uecker 10mo ago
The (second) decision to exit nuclear was made by the Merkel government. Merkel is a physicist with a doctorate.
577.
by uecker 10mo ago
As a physicist I disagree. While one should have left the existing plants running longer (but those things are decided a long time in advance), the exit was fundamentally th correct decision from an economic point of view. The extreme dro
578.
by uecker 10mo ago
This is lot of nonsense. The cost is mostly due to the funding of renewables at a time when they were still very expensive. This was highly successful in bringing down cost. Despite fakenews in this direction, fossil fuel consumption did
579.
by uecker 10mo ago
Germany stopped importing Russian gas after the start of the Ukraine war. One also has to understand that only a small fraction of gas use in Germany is for generation of electricity and much bigger part is for heating. Finally, the amoun
580.
by uecker 10mo ago
Neither Microsoft nor Google contribute to C standardization.
581.
by uecker 10mo ago
The C standard has a conformance model that distinguishes between "strictly conforming" and "conforming" C programs. Almost zero C programs are strictly conforming, but many are conforming.
582.
by uecker 10mo ago
bytewise copy just works with the TS. What it does not support is tracking provenance across the copy and doing optimization based on this. What we hope is that compilers drop these optimizations, because they are unsound.
583.
by uecker 10mo ago
This is a naive and dangerous view of "unsafe". The safety of surrounding code depends on the unsafe blocks not violating invariants of safe Rust, and the safety of "unsafe" blocks may rely on assumptions about the safe
584.
by uecker 10mo ago
I know for sure that Microsoft does not, because they are not interested in C (and there compiler does not even fully support recent standards) and I assume the same thing about Google. I general, I do not think they write much C in the fi
585.
by uecker 10mo ago
I do not know what xfce really has to do with X11 vs Wayland, but you could - if one wanted - build an X server that integrates a compositer and window manager. I do not think this has any real technical advantage and I think a modular desi
586.
by uecker 10mo ago
I don't put too much wait on the self-reporting by Microsoft or Google. I agree though that the strategy to write safe bits and abstractions is good. What I know not to be true is the idea that similar strategies would not work also
587.
by uecker 10mo ago
I am not saying that safety culture is irrelevant, not at all. I am saying that if the advantage of Rust is the culture that emphasizes safety (or rather memory safety, if the Rust community cared about safety in general cargo would not exi
588.
by uecker 10mo ago
Also in C or Zig you do not need to create your own memory management using mmap. Whether this is necessary in this case or not is a different question. In the end, if the Rust advantage is that "Rust's technical design reinforces
589.
by uecker 10mo ago
I don't think this is silly FUD. The article describes a scenario where the low-level abstractions itself was buggy in a subtle way, the comparison to "unsafe" Rust seems entirely fair to me. (edited for typos)
590.
by uecker 10mo ago
I program C a lot and I do not have to spent any noticeable time on debugging memory issues. I think all these arguments are essentially a strawman based on a very bad worst-case old-style C code - ignoring useful tooling and modern style
591.
by uecker 10mo ago
It is problem of all languages whose extensions to C are badly designed. That it works with the C FFI just shows that C part properly supports it while Rust does not. And yes, C++ has similar problems as Rust.
592.
by uecker 10mo ago
I see a lot of activity of very specific parts of the industry promoting it. But also enthusiasts doing aggressive marketing are doing aggressive marketing - even if they do not have a budget. Whether it is an improvement is debatable. From
593.
by uecker 10mo ago
It is not so hard to introduce a "safe" keyword in C. I have a patched GCC that does it. The subset of the language which can be used safety is a bit too small to be full replacement on its own, but also not that small.
594.
by uecker 10mo ago
Probably something in-between: a self-organizing cult with too much support from industry.
595.
by uecker 10mo ago
The article gave many good reasons where Rust is lacking. The points you raise are also clearly issues. My main additional issues are the high complexity, the syntax, the lack of stability, compilation times (and monomorphization), and la
596.
by uecker 10mo ago
Yes, sorry, apparently not quick enough. I actually do not think it is horrible. It is a nice language, but I still do not like it and see many downsides. What I hate though is how aggressively it is marketed. See my other response for deta
597.
by uecker 10mo ago
I agree that C is best. I think Rust is actually a language with some severe downsides, despite having including some very good ideas and C having some real issues. But it will take a couple of years before one can discuss this rationall
598.
by uecker 10mo ago
Thanks! What I do not quite understand is the need for a capture clause that lists the captured variables. As a user, I do not want to list my captures. As a code reviewer I certainly do not want value capture that create a modifiable copy
599.
by uecker 10mo ago
Here some more bechmarking: https://codeberg.org/uecker/nested-functions-benchmarking
600.
by uecker 10mo ago
If the problem is getting the build tools to work in your old chroot, then the problem is still "people distributing programs that request the newest version", i.e. the build tool developers / packagers. I generally do not h

More ›