News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

mkpankov

mkpankov on Hacker News

Re:GC Tuning Confessions of a Performance Engineer on Friday May 29, 2015 @02:42PM (#9626482)
A stupid question: what's TLAB?
Re:The State of Go on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @07:38AM (#9610635)
It's not "deterministic". It has limits on time consumption of GC defined. But you still can't tell when, and if, at any given moment you'll have a pause.
Re:The State of Go on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @07:34AM (#9610615)
> similar timeframes

I hope you understand first stable release of Rust happened less than 2 weeks ago (15 May 2015), vs. Go's Go 1 in March 2012.

3 years is pretty big difference.

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:33AM (#9532507)
Note the translation is done by a company which makes C++ static analyzer for a living.

This might be the case of conflict of interest and/or heavy bias.

Re:Criticizing the Rust Language, and Why C/C++ Will Never Die on Tuesday May 12, 2015 @11:32AM (#9532498)
C++ is impossible to validate formally.

Rust inherently guarantees static memory safety in many situations, on the other hand.

Re:From Fastmail back to Gmail on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @05:29AM (#9216958)
Well, I can't say I'm happy with spam filtering - I regularly get some stupid spam to the inbox (not even something smart enough to bypass the filters, IMO).
Re:From Fastmail back to Gmail on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @05:05AM (#9216891)
I have 4 virtual domains bound to same account. Why isn't it an option? You can filter stuff based on "To:" address to put it in different "Inbox" folders. And storage usage is more optimal since you don't pay for a lot of nearly-empty inboxes.
Re:The CERT C Secure Coding Standard on Wednesday January 21, 2015 @07:56AM (#8922840)
I investigated this Standard once.

See https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode... and exception EXP05-EX3 in particular.

Exception promotes non-standard-compliant (undefined) behavior because it "usually works".

Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @10:13AM (#8556852)
Yeah, previously we had a no-configure setup (just a configuration file). I have some thoughts on how this could be implemented in Qake properly, but didn't get to it yet.
Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:25AM (#8556177)
For me, it always was more about infrastructure - successfully distributing a project when it's built with something less-than-mainstream is a problem, even if majority of install base is Ubuntu systems.

In this particular case, we would need to either build GHC from source for every user, or provide a binary compiled version for every Ubuntu version to keep providing source-level access to build system.

Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:19AM (#8556159)
I ended up using $(eval ...) a lot, and turns out Make's support for it is... suboptimal.

As for paper - I believe it's "Recursive Make Considered Harmful" - I read it, it's great. Was one of the main motivators during build system rewrite.

Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:16AM (#8556149)
In some environments, even upgrading Make to a newer version is a hassle. Let alone installing some different tool.
Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:13AM (#8556139)
Well, I'm going to admit I blatantly stole that piece from another project I use... Never considered that :)
Re:Qake: GNU Make-based build system with a different approach on Tuesday November 04, 2014 @07:11AM (#8556135)
Currently not. I imagine how this could be done, but it's quite a portion of work.