unscaled

65 ms·

631.
by unscaled 10y ago
Windows 7 was a 'tock' release to Vista's 'tick', so I can see why the author would not consider it major. Then again, Windows 10 was also probably a 'tock' release to Windows 8's tick (considering 8.
632.
by unscaled 10y ago
Then people can just go ahead make it, instead of complaining about lazy developers locking themselves into Jetbrains tools or eclipse or trying to do everything from within Emacs or Vim. Right now you've got very basic refactoring too
633.
by unscaled 10y ago
It's not about what UNIX can theoretically do. Yeah, sure, you can refactor a method over a socket, I guess, just as you could use VBA macros in Excel to write a Tetris game using spreadsheet cells as block. The question is whether the
634.
by unscaled 10y ago
The nice thing with wrapping it in an abstraction, is that you can change or add optimizations without having to change the code EVERYWHERE.
635.
by unscaled 10y ago
This is not a generic option type, but rather a tri-state bool, or an Option<bool>. Go has no user-defined generics, so you can't have a bool type. It does have built-in "magical" generics, namely arrays, slices maps an
636.
by unscaled 10y ago
Go's wholesale embrace of null is kinda jarring at this day and age, since it doesn't even have safe null dereferencing operators like Groovy, C#, Kotlin et. al. It's like Java all over again. Considering Rob Pike is a huge f
637.
by unscaled 10y ago
AirDrop was always a hit or miss for. I think it's even worse than file shares on Windows which worked me 80% on the time at best. It seems that the main issue here is peer discovery, but I'm still somewhat astounded nobody has ma
638.
by unscaled 10y ago
Windows 95 actually still included the program manager and you could have used it as your shell, if you really wanted: http://toastytech.com/guis/win95progman.png
639.
by unscaled 10y ago
If you're looking for a FULLY statically typechecked program, you can easily do better than Go. Heck, even using Typescript or Javascript with Flow would give stronger typing than Go with its ubiquitous "interface{}". Static
640.
by unscaled 10y ago
C++ is horrible in many ways, but Go never really tried hard to replace it (although it claimed to do that in the beginning, before it was refocused as a language for backend and tools). The are many reasons for that, but most importantly,
641.
by unscaled 10y ago
I'm using goimports too, and it works like magic 95% of the time, while I can manually take care of the rest. But it only solves the unused imports issue. During development (especially when playing with code) I often need to temporari
642.
by unscaled 10y ago
Go's entire philosophy is that developers are a bunch of incompetent slobs, and it's the language's job to fix that. I can't say I blame Rob Pike for not trusting developers, and I've definitely seen more than one c
643.
by unscaled 10y ago
Typescript actually already supports async/await since version 1.7, but only for ES6 targets - i.e. it compiles everything down to generator-based coroutines, which is essentially the same as the 'transform-async-to-generator&#x27
644.
by unscaled 10y ago
OCaml is quite fast, and I guess it could produce faster code than C++ on some occasions, but it's definitely SLOWER than C++ for most benchmarks, e.g.: benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=ocaml&lang2=g
645.
by unscaled 10y ago
Well, not patching a security flaw is not exactly a good business practice either. Now, locking the Windows RT bootloader was a bad practice to begin with, and it's a good thing Microsoft stopped doing that. Then again, it's hard
646.
by unscaled 10y ago
These types of programming are different, but not in the way you describe. It's not the cliche of CRUD LOB vs. "Cool things", but of making apps targeted at the end user vs. creating a shared infrastructure (whether it is a l
647.
by unscaled 10y ago
I completely agree that explicit memory management (I wouldn't call it manual) in the C++/Rust way is a cognitive overhead you don't want for a great deal of the software work - perhaps most of it. But there are definitely pr
648.
by unscaled 10y ago
C++ has also had native unicode support for a while now (made standard in C++11). The table complains that indexing is byte-based, but that's arguably better than the deceptive UTF-16 based indexing many languages have, since UTF-16 co
649.
by unscaled 10y ago
Reading through the docs, it was nice seeing that Pascal wasn't sitting still through all the these years. Generics, extension methods (class helpers) and value types - though the last features actually existed way before class, and I&
650.
by unscaled 10y ago
That is false. Vietnam does not count as "many". As far as enforcement goes, Japan could be said to have stricter enforcement than the US, recently non-commercial infringers actually being arrested by the police and facing impriso
651.
by unscaled 10y ago
Higher level does not necessarily mean more modern language features and paradigm - it only means language's computation model is farther removed from the actual hardware. Allen was specifically discussing auto-optimizations (what we
652.
by unscaled 11y ago
This is definitely bad behavior from Microsoft that amounts to patent trolling, but that's still way better than the old Microsoft was. They weren't the only ones though, as any of the fancy patent lawsuit maps of the smartphone p
653.
by unscaled 11y ago
Windows Forms is just a wrapper around the GUI parts of the Windows API. Even if they do open it it won't help anyone port Windows Forms to anything else, since the real display logic is implemented in the huge legacy codebase that is
654.
by unscaled 11y ago
The main problem with Go is that it was originally pushed by its developers as the perfect language for these applications, and it's still actively pushed as a systems language in some circles. The Go language FAQ still states that no
655.
by unscaled 11y ago
Right, except that Rust is a modern power saw with safety enclosure and C is a rusted chainsaw that only works half of the time.
656.
by unscaled 11y ago
Looking at the presentation it looks like you can borrow a non-const reference (in rust parlance) several times, so there's no concurrency guarantee. You would have to break compatibility with too much existing code to get the same lev
657.
by unscaled 11y ago
My real gripe with C is that it was designed to be insecure ON PURPOSE, and many people in the OSS world hold the religious view that this is a good thing. C's primary design goal that overrode everything else was easy implementation.
658.
by unscaled 11y ago
OP article was specifically talking about Rustbelt as one tool you would be able to use in the future to mitigate the risks posed by the unsafe code you do have. But in general, I think that entire idea is that as more code moves to memory-
659.
by unscaled 11y ago
Early versions of C date to 1972, while early versions of C++ (called C with classes back then) date 1979, only 7 years later, probably a few rooms down the hall from where C was originally developed. True, templates came much later, but by
660.
by unscaled 11y ago
The world has a few other languages besides Java, Python and Ruby. Not every language has a GIL, and its the damn 2010s and we've got other concurrency models worth trying beside the 90's staple of mutex-littered multithreaded app

More ›