Hi,
* Markus Wichmann 2019-01-30 20:13
> > Can you web development in C?
>
> You can, since you can do anything in C. But why would you want to? Web
performance. (which translates to user experience and computational time
these days, among others)
I've heard that a large Chinese IT company runs
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 02:34:19PM -0600, Cág wrote:
> Well, I assumed most people on this list do write C for a living, isn't
> that so?
>
I certainly do. Working in embedded stuff.
> Can you web development in C?
>
You can, since you can do anything in C. But why would you want to? Web
dev i
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019 at 01:33, Richard Wiedenhöft
wrote:
> I am very interested in why you dislike functional-programming paradigms. It's
> a lot of complexity for sure but IMHO it makes it easier to reason about
> certain complicated problems. There are cases where it's worth the extra
> (well-def
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 12:35, Cág wrote:
> Anselm Garbe wrote:
> >> Implying C is such an obscure language that can never pay your bills.
> > No implication here. But demand for plain C developers is considerably
> > lower these days with the exception of the embedded/IoT and kernel
> > space. And
Anselm Garbe wrote:
Implying C is such an obscure language that can never pay your bills.
No implication here. But demand for plain C developers is considerably
lower these days with the exception of the embedded/IoT and kernel
space. And often plain C is subsumed with C++ unfortunately, as it i
How do you reconcile love of minimalism with the big added runtime complexity
of a garbage collector (when you need to support multithreading and balance
latency, throughput and memory usage)?
Personally, I think that a high level language that can easily interact with a
low level one is a good so
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 11:45:39AM -0800, Anselm Garbe wrote:
> The language itself is certainly better than C++ or Java and avoided
> many mistakes (like exceptions and going to far with OO). On the other
> hand the typesystem isn't great and much more complex than golang's
> approach. Also I disl
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Anselm Garbe wrote:
> I
> wouldn't recommend the cgo approach at all ;) I came to that
> conclusion almost 10 years ago already, when some people started
> writing WMs with Xlib in Go (cgo'ed xlib.go or whatever it was called
> at the time) and realized that it suc
Hi,
Guys, why bothering with an obvious troll fed on google go propaganda???
come on...
--
Sylvain
Hi Ciprian,
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 13:35, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
wrote:
> * I would skip C if it doesn't require too much OS-related
> interaction; in fact if I do need OS interaction, Rust is a better
> alternative than Go, due to Go's goroutine runtime which, as a
> previous poster noticed, doe
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 9:46 PM Anselm Garbe wrote:
> > What are your concerns about Rust?
>
> The language itself is certainly better than C++ or Java and avoided
> many mistakes (like exceptions and going to far with OO). On the other
> hand the typesystem isn't great and much more complex than
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 06:27, Siraaj Khandkar wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2019, at 20:18, Anselm Garbe wrote:
> > C89 (or C99) clearly remains the preferred language for suckless
> > software. However, when forced into typical day job developments to
> > fund your well being, golang might actually be the
On Sat, 26 Jan 2019 at 03:55, Cág wrote:
> Anselm Garbe wrote:
> > However, when forced into typical day job developments to
> > fund your well being, golang might actually be the sanest option on
> > the table -- in order to avoid worse options such as Rust, Java,
> > Kotlin, Scala, Ruby, C#, Swi
On Jan 25, 2019, at 20:18, Anselm Garbe wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 09:54, Nick wrote:
>> Anybody else enjoying Go? Or hating it? Have I become lazy and
>> trendy in my middle age?
>
> Nice try.
>
> C89 (or C99) clearly remains the preferred language for suckless
> software. However, wh
Anselm Garbe wrote:
However, when forced into typical day job developments to
fund your well being, golang might actually be the sanest option on
the table -- in order to avoid worse options such as Rust, Java,
Kotlin, Scala, Ruby, C#, Swift etc.
Implying C is such an obscure language that can
On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 at 09:54, Nick wrote:
> Anybody else enjoying Go? Or hating it? Have I become lazy and
> trendy in my middle age?
Nice try.
C89 (or C99) clearly remains the preferred language for suckless
software. However, when forced into typical day job developments to
fund your well bein
Markus Wichmann wrote:
> I have a different problem with Go: Their insistence on reinventing the
> wheel.
Complaining about reinventing the wheel on this mailing list is a bold
and hilarious move. A+
> Would also not be a problem if the Go runtime entirely supplanted the
> libc.
It can/does?
> Anybody else enjoying Go? Or hating it?
I've been writing Go code daily for about six years now. Overall I
like it. It sucks less than most languages I've worked with.
I enjoy that the language has stayed small (~80 page spec) and the
developers have declined nearly all feature requests for th
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 08:41:54PM +0100, Silvan Jegen wrote:
> The opinions on Go are mixed on this list from what I remember.
Oh boy, that again. If you wait a minute, someone will tell you that Go
is bloated because a Hello World clocks in at 2MB or something.
I have a different problem with G
Hi
[2019-01-25 17:53] Nick
> Quoth Hiltjo Posthuma:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:21:26PM +, Nick wrote:
> > > That way we can devote the mailing list to more productive pursuits,
> > > like arguing for the millionth time that C++ is terrible.
> > >
> >
> > Don't keep spamming the mailingl
Quoth Hiltjo Posthuma:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 02:21:26PM +, Nick wrote:
> > That way we can devote the mailing list to more productive pursuits,
> > like arguing for the millionth time that C++ is terrible.
> >
>
> Don't keep spamming the mailinglist with the same things then. It is up to
21 matches
Mail list logo
