Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

marc.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 344 posts

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#211

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

glogla wrote: post #206
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, shut your mouth -- you have no business telling me that my computers "suck" when they serve my needs. It doesn't suck and is one of the most pleasant machines I own due to small size and low upkeep of the OS. 32-bit Win10 works fine on dual-core 2GB of RAM for almost all of my uses (and is the one that shipped with it -- so perhaps check your sources before posting), with notable exceptions being Electron ap…

> Firstly, shut your mouth > You should refrain from posting comments like you did here -- they make the community worse. I don't even know what to say.

That you disagree with my assessment that angry lead-ins to detailed responses to people insulting your things are appropriate, but feel insulting other people's belongings (while providing incorrect and useless tech advice) is appropriate -- or even constructive?

Because that's what you did say. (:

I (as you mighy expect) disagree with your assessment of what makes a functional community.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#212

Post by HumanDrivenDev »

reggieband wrote: post #116

I remember I stopped frequenting /r/programming when it became this weird Haskell echo chamber. It was a bubble where a small but vocal faction inside the community seemed to over react to any criticism. They methodically and tirelessly responded to every comment with an endless litany of "facts" showing how Haskell could do anything from os kernels to game programming. They touted every industry mention of Haskell u…

One thing proggit has over HN is there's much less political discussion. I find the constant political debates and drivebys here incredibly tiring. Only about one-third the links on the frontpage here of any interest to me as a 'hacker'.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#213

Post by cies »

HumanDrivenDev wrote: post #202
stochastic_monk wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's become clear to me that a lot of the Rust fanatics don't actually know how C++ works and and Rust is their first low-level language. The ones I'm talking about know enough to make them sound like they know what they're talking about unless you actually know what they're trying and failing to accurately describe. It sounds and seems like a language worthy of more investigation on my part, but I have to agree that…

It sounds and seems like a language worthy of more investigation on my part, but I have to agree that the militant, presumptive attacks on any language besides their Chosen One has left a bad taste in my mouth. This 100 times over. It's a language that seems novel and strong enough to stand on its own merits - but there's a section of the community that makes me want to stay away. I wish they'd spend less effort re-w…

> A drop in replacement for "ls" isn't that exciting for me.

And a good getting your feet wet project for someone else :)

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#214

Post by user5994461 »

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run full Windows 10 on a tablet (dual core, 2GB RAM), and it's pretty amazing to me how many websites that have no reason to run slow completely fail on it. I can only imagine it works fine on dev machines with much faster quad+ cores and 64GB of RAM or whatever. Just as an aside, it's done a lot to have the tablet be my primary "fiddle-at-home" machine: keeps me really conscious of resource limits, including ones…

Win10 just doesn't work well on 2GiB. Compressed pages are nice but not enough to prevent swapping. It also doesn't help that MS prevents you from running 32-bit on modern hardware to alleviate some of the memory pressure. The solution is to install 32-bit Linux on it. Then it won't suck.

Windows works great, the issue is the applications, and indirectly the developers of said applications, some of which are on HN.

Most applications are requesting hundreds of megabytes if not entire gigabytes, the system will swap to death after you open an app and a browser tab on facebook.

I remember a friend who bought a 2GB netbook, the thing froze to death whenever he opened just eclipse, he had to return it.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#215

Post by sli »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #195
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Win10 just doesn't work well on 2GiB. Compressed pages are nice but not enough to prevent swapping. It also doesn't help that MS prevents you from running 32-bit on modern hardware to alleviate some of the memory pressure. The solution is to install 32-bit Linux on it. Then it won't suck.

Firstly, shut your mouth -- you have no business telling me that my computers "suck" when they serve my needs. It doesn't suck and is one of the most pleasant machines I own due to small size and low upkeep of the OS. 32-bit Win10 works fine on dual-core 2GB of RAM for almost all of my uses (and is the one that shipped with it -- so perhaps check your sources before posting), with notable exceptions being Electron ap…

> You should refrain from posting comments like you did here -- they make the community worse. You should also reconsider how you provide tech support, in general.

So an actively hostile comment in response to an opinionated one is somehow better and not measurably worse? You could just as easily have a discussion on why they think it objectively sucks, and you both may learn something from it.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#216

Post by user5994461 »

mikepurvis wrote: post #100
yellowapple wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If compilation exhausts the IA32 address space, then I'd say it's not adequately performant as a whole, regardless of how "efficient" the resulting binaries might be.

Hard disagree. Compilation is like encoding a video— it's a price you pay once, and if you know the resulting binary will be run millions of times, it's totally worthwhile spending a lot of compute and memory upfront to get that binary as fast as possible.

What languages do you come from? What is fast compilation for you?

The compilation phase can take hours in C++. Up to a day when compiling huge projects will all the optimization flags.

Live that for some time and it will quickly prove you that you were wrong. Compilation time matters.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#217

Post by SomeStupidPoint »

sli wrote: post #215
SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Firstly, shut your mouth -- you have no business telling me that my computers "suck" when they serve my needs. It doesn't suck and is one of the most pleasant machines I own due to small size and low upkeep of the OS. 32-bit Win10 works fine on dual-core 2GB of RAM for almost all of my uses (and is the one that shipped with it -- so perhaps check your sources before posting), with notable exceptions being Electron ap…

> You should refrain from posting comments like you did here -- they make the community worse. You should also reconsider how you provide tech support, in general. So an actively hostile comment in response to an opinionated one is somehow better and not measurably worse? You could just as easily have a discussion on why they think it objectively sucks, and you both may learn something from it.

I actually outlined why I thought they were wrong, and shut your mouth is clearly attached to not making subjective statements about other people's belongings (which, I absolutely stand by as inappropriate) -- so yes, an angry but on-point comment is better than just throwing out "lolsux" uselessly, or in the case above, based on wrong information.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#218

Post by user5994461 »

madez wrote: post #131
mikepurvis wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. Compilation is like encoding a video— it's a price you pay once, and if you know the resulting binary will be run millions of times, it's totally worthwhile spending a lot of compute and memory upfront to get that binary as fast as possible.

So, you say Python is totally missing the point and is wrong? Even when encoding videos, performance matters. Also, that optimizing compilation is important is no reason to not work on i386. This is a point Rust needs to fix. And not only i386 support, but also other architecture families, as host .

Python is slow as fuck.

All the heavy API and computation libraries are wrappers are C binaries that are optimized to death.

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#219

Post by qznc »

legosteen11 wrote: post #191
mschuster91 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People have told me for the longest time that Java is a shitty language I shouldn't be using. Java is a great language in theory, the problem with Java is that people have evolved to use layers upon layers upon even more layers of abstractions, the tooling is horrenduos (try configuring maven vs npm) and especially all complex Java applications end up being as slow as molasses (e.g. SAP GUI, Lotus Notes, Eclipse, j…

How is Maven (or Gradle, but I prefer Maven) bad? I've never used npm, but I quite like Maven's use of XML for defining project dependencies etc. with clear structure.

I have very little experience with Maven, but I find it hard to understand and restricting. Maybe I should take the time to learn the fundamentals properly and maybe I would be enlightened, but it seems to work very different to other build tools.

Example "Lifecycles" [0]. The documentation says "Maven is based around the central concept of a build lifecycle. What this means is that the process for building and distributing a particular artifact (project) is clearly defined." The first sentence just says "this is important!". I have no idea what that second sentence is supposed to tell me. The documentation goes on without a clear definition what a lifecycle is. I figure it is a kind of command. Afterall, the basic lifecycles are "default" which is "make all", "clean" like "make clean", and "site" like "make docs". I'm not sure, there is no good definition of "lifecycle" in the documentation there. Hard to understand.

Well, there is a predefined set of lifecycles and each lifecycle has a predefined list of phases, where stuff can hook into. For example, with java the compile phase will turn my java files into class files. The test phase will turn class files into test reports. Recently, I wanted to merge multiple coverage reports [1]. Turns out, this is done in a compile phase, which is reasonable. However, the reports are generated in the test phase, which is after the compile phase. At this point, I'm lost. This corset of phases is restricting me.

[0] https://maven.apache.org/guides/introduction/introduction-to... [1] http://www.eclemma.org/jacoco/trunk/doc/merge-mojo.html

Re: Integrating “safe” languages into OpenBSD?

#220

Post by chc4 »

Polyisoprene wrote: post #193

Seems most os developers don’t care about the users and only about their maintenance and adoption cost. I WANT my computer and files protected by software written in a safe way using safe languages. I don’t care about the compile time of grep, I stopped caring about that kind of dick measurement competitions a long time ago. Give me a safe, open operating system and I’m willing to trade Posix compatibility and compil…

I'm looking forward to the world of running Servo on Redox and never having to worry about a buffer overflow again.
Post reply on HN