691–700 of 797 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Christian missionaries trying to convert the savages Fast forward 5 centuries, it turns out they were in fact pretty successful as South America central Africa are the places where Catholicism is the most active today, far more than in Europe.
Yes, by doing a lit of killing in those places.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, by doing a lit of killing in those places.
Not from religious people, by a very large margin.
The Christian Brothers missions were hell holes across the undeveloped regions.
* https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/02/child-migran...
* https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/case-studies/ca...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Shell (which probably means specifically bash) Debian has ongoing efforts to make many shell scripts (like postinst Scripts in packages etc.) non-bash-specific. A minimal Debian installation doesn't contain bash, but rather dash, which doesn't support bash extensions.
Whether with a base install via the installer, or debootstrap, I've never seen bash missing. For clarity, 'sh' is what is softlinked to dash. Not bash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I get point for attracting young blood. But I wonder if the core utils which have been rewritten got rewritten by the original maintainers? And again the question why not simply write something new. With a modern architecture etc rather than drop in replacements. On your second part. I wonder how aviation and space and car industry do it. They rely heavily on tested / proven concepts. What do they do when introd…
> why not simply write something new. Because of backwards compatibility. You don’t rewrite Linux from scratch to fix old mistakes, that’s making a new system altogether. And I’m pretty sure there are some people doing just that. But still, there’s value in rewriting the things we have now in a future-proof language, so we have a better but working system until the new one is ready.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust isn't 'delivering value', people are just drinking the koolaid. CL has its niches, and it still fills them well: it's never been that successful as a general-purpose language.
> Rust isn't 'delivering value' Citation needed. Or, what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed by pointing to ripgrep.
Can we please also have the hard requirement that code should run without warnings under Valgrind? Because that saves a lot of headaches down the line.
Don't want to introduce complex code to only copy the parts that are actually reachable would be silly and introduce bugs.
But keep in mind valgrind is super buggy and we spend quite a bunch of time working around valgrind false positives (outside of amd64)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> > since it only supports amd64 at this time and is maintained by a single genius. > That's easily fixable. as easily as fixing Rust to work on the remaining 4 architectures? > > It also doesn't help you to attract new contributors. > I don't understand this point. C++ doesn't attract a lot of developers, Rust attracts many more. I want more community, particularly _young_ community. I don't wanna work on this alone…
> as easily as fixing Rust to work on the remaining 4 architectures? Easier, because you won't have to port Fil-C to all of the architectures in order to use it on amd64. > C++ doesn't attract a lot of developers, Rust attracts many more. C is #2 on TIOBE. C++ is #3 on TIOBE. Rust is #16 on TIOBE. So I don't know what you're talking about
i guess it's cool for c(++) to have nice tiobe rankings but if they're not contributing how is that relevant?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can lisp be fast if it doesn't have static typing and uses GC?
As a GC language Common Lisp is slow as molasses. However, in the realm of languages which are slow as molasses it's got quite acceptable performance. I suppose it's in part because it's alien technology from beyond the bounds of the multiverse, but also in part due to the fact that we had really interesting tech back in the '70s and '80s that kinda got lost during the so-called AI winter. To add on to that, with dec…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you're not conflating documentation with random people's writings on the web? Because that there seems to be a helluva lot of cargo culting on this topic.
When the primary documentation is of no use one looks for anything else that can possibly help and a lot of that is out of date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, there are approximately five languages that are presumed to be acceptable for core applications in the base system: C, C++, Shell (which probably means specifically bash), Perl, and Python. The most recent language to be added to that list is Python, about 20 years ago. That's not to say that everybody likes those languages (indeed, there's quite a few commenters here who I think would be surprised to lear…
> there are approximately five languages that are presumed to be acceptable for core applications in the base system: [...] Python I don't know if you've tried to get someone else's Python running recently, but it has devolved into a disaster effectively requiring containers to accurately replicate the exact environment it was written in. Core system applications should be binaries that run with absolutely minimal de…