> > > > 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
Hello Mitt,
Dimitris Papastamos writes:
> On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:52:50PM +0300, Mitt Green wrote:
> > [...]
> > Any help will be highly appreciated.
> >
> > P.S. X works fine, I've tried Openbox.
> >
> > / Mitt
>
> http://www.netbsd.org/docs/elf.html#elf-rpath
>
Alternatively you can also
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:52:50PM +0300, Mitt Green wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I adjusted paths in config.mk:
> X11INC = /usr/X11R7/include
> X11LIB = /usr/X11R7/lib
> FREETYPEINC = ${X11INC}/freetype2
>
> It compiles successfully, but startx/xinitrc
> show me X for a second and then it goes
> back to tt
Hi,
I adjusted paths in config.mk:
X11INC = /usr/X11R7/include
X11LIB = /usr/X11R7/lib
FREETYPEINC = ${X11INC}/freetype2
It compiles successfully, but startx/xinitrc
show me X for a second and then it goes
back to tty.
Typing dwm from tty gives
'Shared object "libX11.so.7" not found'
libX11.so
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
