> > > > seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
> > > > https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
> > >
> > > Yeah, ruby is better than go, for sure in my experience.
> >
> > Great. Yet another poorly specified or documented language. Just what we
> > need.
>
> That was
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:10:02PM -0400, Alex Pilon wrote:
> > > seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
> > > https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
> >
> > Yeah, ruby is better than go, for sure in my experience.
>
> Great. Yet another poorly specified or document
> > seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
> > https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
>
> Yeah, ruby is better than go, for sure in my experience.
Great. Yet another poorly specified or documented language. Just what we
need.
On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 09:19:06AM +1100, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> > Heyho,
> >
> > seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
> > https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
>
> Yeah, ruby is better than go,
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 07:35:46PM +0200, Markus Teich wrote:
> Heyho,
>
> seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
> https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
Yeah, ruby is better than go, for sure in my experience.
--
Sylvain
Heyho,
seeing the new subject I feel obligated to leave this link here:
https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
--Markus
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND
wrote:
> rust is better than go, or the other way around?
I'm not arguing for, or against either. I use Go and like and dislike
different aspects of it. I've written, maybe, 200 lines in rust so
it's premature to comment on that...
I will say that
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 10:16:31AM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> The fact remains: rust has had approx. 1/26 times the time hurd, and
> 1/25 times the time linux had to develop. Do you think it's fair to
> already consider it's an epic fail?
Ok, you won the troll.
Wait and see. In the mean time I'l
On 05/03/2016 01:57 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
>> Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far
>> towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they
>> all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the ker
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far
> towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they
> all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine).
Like Hurd.
> Of course,
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND
wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:47:06PM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> > On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> > >>> [...]
> > >
> > >
> > > When you want to
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:47:06PM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >
> >
> > When you want to promote a new language:
> > 1 - write a boostrap compiler (for kern
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:29 AM, FRIGN wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:12:08 +1000
> Timothy Rice wrote:
>
> Hey Timothy,
>
>> A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed
>> to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus
>> should usually be pref
On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
>>> [...]
>
>
> When you want to promote a new language:
> 1 - write a boostrap compiler (for kernel profile and other profiles)
> in the current "system language" (I gue
On Mon, 02 May 2016, Marc Collin wrote:
> Something better than using fancy (aka: complex) languages with
> garbage collector, memory safeness, etc. is to formal verify your C
> program[0]. There's even a kernel, seL4 that's been formally verified
> to not contain certain bugs like buffer overflow
If you think about suckless as keeping things simple and not wasting
computer resources, this little story is relevant --
John von Neumann, when he first heard about FORTRAN in 1954, was
unimpressed and asked "why would you want more than machine language?"
One of von Neumann's students at Princet
On Mon, 02 May 2016, FRIGN wrote:
> Benjamin Franklin said this:
> “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they
> deserve, either one.”
> And this defines what it's all about.
> C is all about freedom, and any measure a higher level language applies
> is a cut i
Thanks FRIGN, both your emails have given me a bit to think about.
~ Tim
On Mon, 2 May 2016 17:57:15 +1000
Timothy Rice wrote:
Hey Timothy,
> I'd be more interested to hear about what actually makes C inherently
> better than Go. I quite like C: it forces you to think about the machine a
> little bit, and it disincentivises large complicated programs. But I
> current
On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:12:08 +1000
Timothy Rice wrote:
Hey Timothy,
> A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed
> to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus
> should usually be preferred. It appears that most interest in C these days
> is
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:36:56AM +0200, hiro wrote:
> the popularity of a language amongst hipsters is quite irrelevant. C
> is still the most used language in programs that actually do anything
> (i.e. not some "app" written in a markup language).
Lol, nice :)
However, arguing to tradition and
the popularity of a language amongst hipsters is quite irrelevant. C
is still the most used language in programs that actually do anything
(i.e. not some "app" written in a markup language).
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
> > C is definitely not suckless either, especially when it comes
> > to UB, but it's probably the language with least suck and
> > highest simplicity while giving the most power to the developer.
>
> Not too long ago I expressed suppor
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote:
C is definitely not suckless either, especially when it comes
to UB, but it's probably the language with least suck and
highest simplicity while giving the most power to the developer.
Not too long ago I expressed support for C as a
24 matches
Mail list logo
