31–40 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would they? Do you have any idea how much money a vuln like that would be worth? You've threatened to kill people on twitter and you think someone would turn something like that over to the team out of charity? You're delusional. I've never seen a million-dollar exploit, but DAMN if this wouldn't be close.
> You've threatened to kill people on twitter What?
He's a real slimeball.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GUIDs are usually 128 bits. So are IPv6 addresses. Could be nice to store them in a single, native type? Probably no easier than a byte array though...
Neither one is used like an integer though. As in, you don't really add GUIDs together¹, so there's no real benefit over a byte array or struct. 1. I guess having bit mask operations for IPv6 addresses could be useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GUIDs are usually 128 bits. So are IPv6 addresses. Could be nice to store them in a single, native type? Probably no easier than a byte array though...
Neither one is used like an integer though. As in, you don't really add GUIDs together¹, so there's no real benefit over a byte array or struct. 1. I guess having bit mask operations for IPv6 addresses could be useful.
This is the big annoyance in Golang with it's net.IP type - it's `type IP []byte`, which means you can write ip1 == ip2 and you can't pass by value easily, nor use it as a map key.
I've ended up inventing my own type for that a lot of the time as a struct wit static fields, since those you can copy around and do 1:1 comparisons.
Though to be honest I'd be super happy if there was a drop-in varint type, or you could trivially have the compiler calculate instructions for a arbitrary fixed size ints.
Why was this feature accepted whereas 128 bit floats were removed from Rust?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither one is used like an integer though. As in, you don't really add GUIDs together¹, so there's no real benefit over a byte array or struct. 1. I guess having bit mask operations for IPv6 addresses could be useful.
But you do want to compare GUIDs. And hash them, which can involve shifting, adding, xor'ing, multiplying, remaindering, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither one is used like an integer though. As in, you don't really add GUIDs together¹, so there's no real benefit over a byte array or struct. 1. I guess having bit mask operations for IPv6 addresses could be useful.
Avoiding pointers to arrays is nice. This is the big annoyance in Golang with it's net.IP type - it's `type IP []byte`, which means you can write ip1 == ip2 and you can't pass by value easily, nor use it as a map key. I've ended up inventing my own type for that a lot of the time as a struct wit static fields, since those you can copy around and do 1:1 comparisons. Though to be honest I'd be super happy if there was…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More than once, but the tweets have been deleted. He's a real slimeball.
Do you have any proof? These seem to be pretty big accusations.
They claimed that I have deleted said tweets so that people wouldn't see them (which also doesn't make much sense) and that they didn't grab a screenshot (which also wouldn't make sense given that it's easy to edit the HTML of a webpage and take a screenshot.)
So uh, yeah.
Why was this feature accepted whereas 128 bit floats were removed from Rust?
128 bit floats were removed years ago (June of 2014), here's the meeting notes from the time: https://github.com/rust-lang/meeting-minutes/blob/master/wee... (as with all old Rust stuff, please remember that details very much might have changed between then and now.) In other words, they weren't removed because we fundamentally didn't want them. They were removed because of maintainability, usability, and usefulness…
What sorts of applications/domains need or benefit from having 128 bit integers?
I haven't used it, but Julia lets you declare any(?) fixed size bitset. Which would probably come in handy for Go.