On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
> Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> > I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk, tk
> > is
> > quite nice to work with (with exception of some small hiccups), and if you
> > have
> > a cli for controlling e
Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
>>> I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk, tk
>>> is
>>> quite nice to work with (with exception of some small hiccups), and if
On 2013-07-02 12:33, David wrote:
Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk, tk is
quite nice to work with (with exception of some sm
Am 02.07.2013 12:33, schrieb Jens Staal:
> On 2013-07-02 12:33, David wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl
> an
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:33:08PM +0200, David wrote:
> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
> >> Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> >>> I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk,
> >>> tk is
> >>> quit
2013/6/29 oneofthem :
> is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless
> community?
> considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
in Lisp, because it's either painful or results in slowness. Lisp is a
great languag
Am 02.07.2013 12:48, schrieb Edgaras:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:33:08PM +0200, David wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to in
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Alexander Sedov wrote:
> 2013/6/29 oneofthem :
> > is there any reason why lisp isn't mentioned much in the suckless
> > community?
> > considered irrelevant, harmful or what?
> I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
> in Lisp, because
>> And no libraries.
>
> I urge you to check out Quicklisp (for Common Lisp,
> http://www.quicklisp.org/) and reevaluate your statement. While the
> Quicklisp + other Common Lisp library repos aren't as exhaustive as CPAN,
> they usually contain very high quality code (unlike CPAN, or PyPi, or
> wh
2013/7/2 Andrew Gwozdziewycz :
> SBCL and Racket are certainly faster than Python, PHP, Ruby, Perl in most
> cases. SBCL, since it is more or less an interactive native code compiler is
> faster yet. You'll have to qualify painful. Are you referring to syntax? If
> so, no Lisper even sees parenthes
Hi,
> Well, nowadays every toy language out there has CFFI, and it's far
> less pleasant to use than native libraries. I have nothing to say
True, but have you ever tried to use any of it? I did and I have to say
that 99% of them are half baked solutions just to satisfy examples.
Even for more po
On 7/2/13, David wrote:
> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
>>> Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk,
tk is
quite nice to work with (with exception
Andrew Gwozdziewycz dixit:
>SBCL and Racket are certainly faster than Python, PHP, Ruby, Perl in most
Less portable: http://packages.debian.org/sid/sbcl#pdownload
bye,
//mirabilos
--
FWIW, I'm quite impressed with mksh interactively. I thought it was much
*much* more bare bones. But it turns ou
Am 02.07.2013 16:34, schrieb hiro:
> On 7/2/13, David wrote:
>> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
>>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk,
> tk is
>>>
> > On 7/2/13, David wrote:
> >> Am 02.07.2013 09:46, schrieb Edgaras:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 08:11:36AM +0200, David wrote:
> Am 02.07.2013 07:08, schrieb Edgaras:
> > I think you should reconsider tk, though you need to install tcl and tk,
> > tk is
> > quite nice to work
> so why keep it executable...
Indeed. chvt.c is now 644.
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:08:27PM -0400, Galos, David wrote:
> > so why keep it executable...
>
> Indeed. chvt.c is now 644.
Hi David,
Could you also have a look at the two patches I've sent:
"Explicitly cast len to unsigned long for %lu" and
"v3 Add md5sum"
Thanks,
stateless
Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!
Alexander Sedov writes:
> I personally consider it irrelevant. People just don't actually write
> in Lisp, because it's either painful or results in slowness. Lisp is a
> great language for teaching abstract CS concepts and languag
> In my opinion it is okay to have sponge called
> without arguments to write to stdout.
I disagree. The only use case I could think of was
something like this:
sed 's/foo/bar/' file | sponge | tee file | frobnicate
However, that would fail to work as expected, so I have
removed the feature.
doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
Calvin
On 2 July 2013 13:29, Galos, David wrote:
>> In my opinion it is okay to have sponge called
>> without arguments to write to stdout.
>
> I disagree. The only use case I could think of was
> something like this:
>
>sed 's/foo/bar/' f
2013/7/2 Craig Brozefsky :
>
> Good morning, some good-natured trollbait to go with my coffee!
> I've spent about half my professional career (15+ yrs) working on Lisp
> products -- Common Lisp, and Clojure specifically. In both
> cases, accomplishing what we had to do in the time we had would not
OFF TOPIC
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:33 AM, David wrote:
> If you have e.g. python, I'd use wx and if I really need advanced
> controls and a highly dynamic GUI, Qt.
I once wrote a rather small utility in python using Tkinter. My
co-workers wanted to use it, but they had Windows, and I wanted to
> Fix warning
I have applied the patch for now. It is unfortunate that c89 does not
support '%zu', because that really would have been the right thing to
do.
David Galos
> doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
Soaking up into a file allows sponge to work on large files. It also
greatly simplifies the actual sponge code.
It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
otherwise:
cat file | grep file > file_temp; mv file_temp file;
On 2 July 2013 14:19, Galos, David wrote:
>> doesn't sponge soak up into memory, not into a file?
>
> Soaking up into a file allows sponge to work on large files
Alexander Sedov writes:
> May I get links to your hard works or at least to your papers, or all
> you have is some stuff you failed to sell to Yahoo, like that one guy?
Wait, I thought he DID sell it, and now farms Chocobos over at Hacker
News?
I originally had links, but thought it gauche, but
> It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
> otherwise:
>
> cat file | grep file > file_temp; mv file_temp file;
Actually, it would be
tmp = $(mktemp)
grep 'foo' file > $tmp
cat $tmp > file
Not only that, but tmpfile(3) is safer with respect to race
co
I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything into memory.
On 2 July 2013 15:39, Galos, David wrote:
>> It also sucks. avoiding a temporary file is the whole point to sponge.
>> otherwise:
>>
>> cat file | grep file > file_temp; mv file_temp file;
>
> Actually, it would be
> tmp =
> I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything into memory.
If the next step is "write that to a temp file" there is a big
problem. There's nothing wrong with the present tempfile approach.
It's reasonably fast, it's completely portable (so no crazy getrlimit
or /proc reading). Strace sh
On 2 July 2013 15:50, Galos, David wrote:
>> I'm failing to see the problem with loading everything into memory.
>
> If the next step is "write that to a temp file" there is a big
> problem. There's nothing wrong with the present tempfile approach.
Yes there is. It wastes read/writes on my hard d
> > If on any system other than linux, I would consider loading into ram,
> > but because of memory overcommit, malloc never fails, the whole system
> > crawls to a halt, and the oom killer takes 20 minutes to put
> > everything back together. No thanks.
>
> Okay so you are discussing a problem wit
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 02:17:30PM -0400, Galos, David wrote:
> > Fix warning
>
> I have applied the patch for now. It is unfortunate that c89 does not
> support '%zu', because that really would have been the right thing to
> do.
>
> David Galos
Yeah that was the first thing I did then I realize
> and also depends on having a non-read only filesystem
> to write too.
You understand that in order to change the target file, the
filesystem needs to be writable, right?
> > It's reasonably fast
> I want faster.
It's so fast that you never even realized that the moreutils
version uses a tempfile
> Added LICENSE.lpl as well and updated the license and copyright details for
> the md5 code.
I am considering applying this patch. The license is why I have to take
time to think. I'm worried about setting a precedent which allows external
differently-licensed software to be swept into sbase. It
> > Maybe a better solution could be using mmap.
> Perhaps. I still wouldn't know how much to map, so I'd need
> mremap, and from the manpage:
>This call is Linux-specific, and should not be used
>in programs intended to be portable.
> If you write a portable patch making use of mma
I have just applied the attached patch, adding the mknod(1)
command and manpage to sbase.
Enjoy!
P.S. As a matter of list etiquette, I'm not sure whether this
announcement is considered appropriate. I want to give
folks a chance to comment on my changes, but perhaps
I am supposed to count on peop
36 matches
Mail list logo
