On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:25:48PM +0200, Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
>
> I don't mean to run GMail, but just basic web browsing: render text,
> follow links, show images, terminal or X.
>
> K.
I discovered retawq [1] lately, a terminal web browser. It does not
have an as low number of lines as the
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 Mon, 02 May 2016, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Go is a _much_ simpler language than C.
And yet it still includes a fair share of insanity. The binary size is
not an effect of some random silly magic #ifdef MAKE_BULKY, it's the
effect of linking the userspace scheduler, GC, and Ken knows what else
in
Hi,
Kamil Cholewiński wrote:
> Compiler-level seatbelts are too good not to have! That's how I'd see
> THE candidate to replace C: safe by default, full control only when you
> need it. Add: actually simple (looking at you, Go, Rust), and we'd
> finally have a worthy contender.
Go is a _much_ sim
On Mon, 02 May 2016, Leo Gaspard wrote:
> To get closer to the original topic, I think rust is among the best
> choices for a webkit replacement. A webkit replacement *will* be huge,
> bloated and sucky. It's pretty sad, but most of us need a way to access
> sucky websites that won't work without
On 04/30/2016 03:04 PM, ra...@openmailbox.org wrote:
> On 2016-04-30 11:47, Kajetan Jasztal wrote:
>> how about servo[1]? aims for memory security and fast parallel rendering
>>
>> [1] https://servo.org/
>
> There is a lot of hype about rust being 'memory safe' but where is the
> proof?
AFAICT, P
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
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:00:30AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> On 2 May 2016 at 07:25, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > Just to raise awareness on this issue:
> >
> > - gcc is now c++98 boot-strapable only.
>
> Where do you have this information from?
http://gcc.gnu.org/install/pr
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).
Hi there,
On 2 May 2016 at 07:25, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Just to raise awareness on this issue:
>
> - gcc is now c++98 boot-strapable only.
Where do you have this information from?
At least to me it looks like that gcc-5.3.0 is still bootstrappable
without any g++ call as long as you are n
20 matches
Mail list logo
