usamoi

4 ms·

1.
by usamoi 1mo ago
If people pay for real open-source work, for example, KDE and GNOME, rather than some dotfiles, that's better.
2.
by usamoi 1mo ago
For reference: Arch Linux's monthly expenses are about $2,000, most of which goes toward servers. In other words, for a project of Arch's scale, $10 million would be enough to keep it running for 500 years.
3.
by usamoi 8mo ago
This code is not equivalent to the C++ version. You can directly use `*x == [0_u32; SIZE]`. The code generated by the two is different. (But the iterator version not producing optimal code is also an issue.)
4.
by usamoi 8mo ago
I really don't understand what's the point of such comparisons. Swift uses subtyping, while Rust uses typeclasses. Even looking only at their type systems, the two are completely different. You can't assume they are similar j
5.
by usamoi 9mo ago
Another chip without V extension.
6.
by usamoi 11mo ago
But isn't RISC-V just a standard? ISO will decide what is RISC-V and what isn't. Then its complicated process will become an obstacle to innovation.
7.
by usamoi 11mo ago
> The RISC-V ISA is already an industry standard and the next step is impartial recognition from a trusted international organization. I'm confused. Isn't RISC-V International itself a trusted international organization? It&#x2
8.
by usamoi 1y ago
I've never heard of SPARK. What advantages does it have compared to Lean?
9.
by usamoi 1y ago
It depends on who you are. For implementers of third-party compilers, researchers of the Rust programming language, and programmers who write unsafe code, this is indeed a problem. It's bad. For the designers of Rust, "no formal s
10.
by usamoi 1y ago
Not implementing the Zbb extension but implementing big-endian. That sounds like doing it the hard way.
11.
by usamoi 1y ago
> Our engineers are smart and hardworking but they throw their hands up at this. Since you don't think this is a skill issue, shouldn't you support Safe C++, which eliminates unsafety rather than just turning a blind eye to it?
12.
by usamoi 1y ago
They are not rejecting Safe C++; they are rejecting memory safety. Majority of them believes that memory safety is just hype, and minority of them knows it's a problem, but doesn't want to restrict themselves about coding. If code
13.
by usamoi 1y ago
Well, it is clear that they have a new definition of a microkernel, since there are now more new technologies that achieve isolation without compromising performance. Microkernel vs monolithic kernel is more of a marketing rhetoric than tec
14.
by usamoi 1y ago
They published a paper for it, which includes more details. https://www.usenix.org/conference/osdi24/presentation/chen-h...
15.
by usamoi 2y ago
This is actually quite easy to achieve, as long as you cannot realize your own mistakes.