Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A

arendjr

@ arendjr @programming.dev

Posts
10
Comments
126
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Nuggets vs Tots. Which is which? I will tell you nots.

    Jump

  • Captchas are getting out of hand.

  • Elon Musk to Take on Microsoft With 'Macrohard'

    Jump

  • I can take this one: Because he doesn’t actually care about creating anything of value. If he truly believed in it, you’re right, Twitter or even Tesla’s software engineers would be on the chopping block and he’d replace them with AI as soon as he can. But he doesn’t.

    He knows this is a longshot. Most likely to fail, but very profitable on the near-impossible chance that it works. But he doesn’t care even if the odds are truly impossible. Because this is an investment opportunity, so people will throw money his way, no matter what the odds.

    People assume he’s an idiot, and he is. But he’s not stupid, at least not in every way. He certainly has a skill for separating others from their money, which he happily takes advantage of.

  • Finland: Linux reaches desktop market share of 19.1% in July - up from 5.4% in January

    Jump

  • Slapping on a .expect is also error handling!

    Jump

  • That’s fair, although technically you could catch SIGSEGV and release resources that way too.

    Also, given that resources will be reclaimed by the OS regardless of which kind of crash we’re talking about, the effective difference is usually (but not always) negligible.

    Either way, no user would consider a panic!() to be not a crash because destructors ran. And most developers don’t either.

  • Slapping on a .expect is also error handling!

    Jump

  • “An abrupt exit”, more commonly known as a “crash”.

    If you’re going to argue that an exit through panic!() is not a crash, I will argue that your definition of a crash is just an abrupt exit initiated by the OS. In other words, there’s no meaningful distinction as the result is the same.

  • JetBrains working on higher-abstraction programming language

    Jump

  • I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. While I don’t share your conviction, I do admit it’s certainly a possibility.

    The advantage of doing things that way is that code becomes much more portable. We may finally reach the goal of “write once, run anywhere”, because the AI may write all the platform specific code.

    It does make a big assumption that the AI output is reliable enough though. At times people will want to tweak the output, so how are they gonna go about that? Maybe if the language is based on Markdown, you can inject snippets of code where necessary. But if you have to do that too often, such a language will lose its appeal.

    There’s a lot of unknowns, but I see why it’s a tempting idea.

  • Steam’s June Client Update Brings Proton Default on Linux

    Jump

  • You know, as a full-time Linux user, I think I rather have game developers continue to create Windows executables.

    Unlike most software, games have a tendency to be released, then supported for one or two years, and then abandoned. But meanwhile, operating systems and libraries move on.

    If you have a native Linux build of a game from 10 years ago, good luck trying to run it on your modern system. With Windows builds, using Wine or Proton, you actually have better chances running games from 10 or even 20 years ago.

    Meanwhile, thanks to Valve’s efforts, Windows builds have incentive to target Vulkan, they’re getting tested on Linux. That’s what we should focus on IMO, because those things make games better supported on Linux. Which platform the binary is compiled for is an implementation detail… and Win32 is actually the more stable target.

  • Biome v2 launched: First type-aware linter that doesn't require tsc

    Jump

  • tsc is (very) slow and there are also no convenient ways to interact with it from Rust.

    So it saves a lot development and CI time to roll our own. The downside is that our inference still isn’t as good as tsc of course, but we’re hopeful the community can help us get very close at least.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • How European countries want to reduce their dependence on Microsoft

    Jump

  • Heh, I agree with everything you said, but I’m afraid such a framework is impossible to create, let alone implement. It’s impossible to foresee the infinite possibilities for people to screw themselves through bad decisions, so all you’d create is a lot of bureaucracy to still end up in the same place.

  • rustc_codegen_gcc: Progress Report #36

    Jump

  • That’s still a very major achievement! Do I understand correctly this means all target architectures supported by GCC are now unlocked for Rust too?

  • C is one of the most energy saving language

    Jump

  • It’s that the compiler doesn’t help you with preventing race conditions. This makes some problems so hard to solve in C that C programmers simply stay away from attempting it, because they fear the complexity involved.

    It’s a variation of the same theme: Maybe a C programmer could do it too, given infinite time and skill. But in practice it’s often not feasible.

  • C is one of the most energy saving language

    Jump

  • Which one should I pick then, that is both as fast as the std solutions in the other languages and as reusable for arbitrary use cases?

    Because it sounds like your initial pick made you loose the machine efficiency argument and you can’t have it both ways.

  • C is one of the most energy saving language

    Jump

  • I’m not saying you can’t, but it’s a lot more work to use such solutions, to say nothing about their quality compared to std solutions in other languages.

    And it’s also just one example. If we bring multi-threading into it, we’re opening another can of worms where C doesn’t particularly shine.

  • C is one of the most energy saving language

    Jump

  • Well, let’s be real: many C programs don’t want to rely on Glib, and licensing (as the other reply mentioned) is only one reason. Glib is not exactly known for high performance, and is significantly slower than the alternatives supported by the other languages I mentioned.

  • C is one of the most energy saving language

    Jump

  • I would argue that because C is so hard to program in, even the claim to machine efficiency is arguable. Yes, if you have infinite time for implementation, then C is among the most efficient, but then the same applies to C++, Rust and Zig too, because with infinite time any artificial hurdle can be cleared by the programmer.

    In practice however, programmers have limited time. That means they need to use the tools of the language to save themselves time. Languages with higher levels of abstraction make it easier, not harder, to reach high performance, assuming the abstractions don’t provide too much overhead. C++, Rust and Zig all apply in this domain.

    An example is the situation where you need a hash map or B-Tree map to implement efficient lookups. The languages with higher abstraction give you reusable, high performance options. The C programmer will need to either roll his own, which may not be an option if time Is limited, or choose a lower-performance alternative.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Of course, but it needn’t be black and white. You can also diversify, make yourself less reliant on a single platform. And by doing so, enable your audience to follow you elsewhere. Or diversify into different activities altogether. And when it’s no longer half your income on the line, then switch.

    But doing nothing and saying, “but half my income!”? That’s not only a choice, but also complacency.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Great points, except:

    People can’t leave for anything smaller.

    They can and some do. It’s still a choice.

  • Rust Coreutils 0.1 Released With Big Performance Gains - Can Match Or Exceed GNU Speed

    Jump

  • Ah yes, then we are in agreement. I thought we were talking about unintentionally arriving at the same implementation after looking at the original, which is where the discussion started.