Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)N
Posts
16
Comments
509
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I wrote a program that scanned object files (compiled from a large C++ project) to see how they were interdependent. It was pretty useful for detecting cycles in the shared libraries that we were compiling from them, but the biggest benefit was it enabled me to very easily rewrite the build system from scratch.

    It was surprisingly simple - most ELF parsers can read a file and dump the symbol tables in them. (In this context, a symbol means a defined function, so if a C/C++ source file has int main() in it, the corresponding .o file will have a main symbol in it.) They also include information about which symbols are defined in the .o file, as well as which symbols it depends on which are undefined. This allows you to figure out a dependency graph, which you can easily visualize using graphviz or use to autogenerate build files for CMake or any other build system you may wish to use.

    In my case, I wrote this kind of program twice in two separate jobs. Both of them had a very janky build system using custom Makefiles. I used this program to rewrite the build systems in CMake. The graphviz dependency graphs are also just generally helpful to have as project documentation. CMake can do this natively, by the way - here's the documentation for it: https://cmake.org/cmake/help/latest/manual/cmake.1.html#cmdoption-cmake-graphviz

  • Locked

    I dunno

    Jump
  • I fell for it. It's crazy to think how heavily I've been trained to believe everything I see is wrong in the most embarrassing and laughable way possible. That's pretty depressing if you think about it.

  • Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like {} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.

    By this same logic, memory safety issues in C/C++ aren't a problem either, right? Just don't corrupt memory or dereference null pointers. Only "a shit-ass programmer" would write code that does something like that.

    Real code has complexity. Variables are written to and read from all sorts of places and if you have to audit several functions deep to make sure that every variable won't be set to some special value like that, then that's a liability of the language that you will always have to work around carefully.

  • It's a very interesting question. In terms of which game I'd rather play, it's SMW. But in terms of technical achievement, SMB3 is unquestionably better (in my opinion of course).

    SMB1 was a watershed moment for gaming - perhaps the biggest that there ever was. SMB3 was a revolutionary improvement on top of that. In light of that, SMW almost feels like a bland port. This isn't to say it's bad by any means, but in terms of the impact that it had on gaming as a whole, it's not very significant and just feels like an iterative improvement.

    SMW is still a great game! And if I could only play one for the rest of my life, I would choose it over SMB3. But in terms of historical impact on gaming, I would say that SMB1, Mario64 and SMB3 were more revolutionary.

    Yoshi's Island is my favorite however.

  • "Straight up, nobody wants this"

    And they don't fucking care. They're going to do it anyways.

    You can either do something about it, or just bend over and let them fuck you. That's what you get for depending on someone else's platform.

  • I'm not worried about who comes next after Linus. What I am worried about is who comes after GKH....

    The Linux Foundation currently lists 6 total fellows (4 not including Torvalds and GKH). I have never even heard of any of them before. I know there are lots of developers on the Linux project, but it's also a very political position, so I wonder who would take that mantle. Probably nothing to worry about too much, but interesting to think about.

  • I don’t even know where to start to make vim or neovim do all that. If it can’t do that seamlessly and just as well, vimlike editors will never be a replacement for a proper IDE. It’s fast, capable single file and small scope editor for me.

    If you're interested in learning how to do it, I found this guide extremely helpful for getting started. it's in both blog and video format, and it shows how to install Lazy (a package manager for vim), and which plugins to install to get LSP working (which is what would provide all the hotkeys that you were mentioning above).

    It's definitely not a task for the faint of heart, but I found it very rewarding once I figured out how to work with the plugin systems because it's so powerful and easy to customize. I found it helpful to just watch the video a few times to see everything working, then slowly started building up my own configuration (which was a bit more minimal than the linked guide I provided - I only installed about 30-40% of the plugins he listed on that page).

    Another alternative is Lazyvim, which provides an out-of-the-box configuration experience for you. It installs a lot of plugins and most things should work out of the box with very little configuration. It is a massive beast though, but still pretty good for a first start.

  • I completely agree. For basic things, it is very good. But for productivity, it leaves a lot to be desired, because they (the developers) simply cannot accept that different people work in different ways and they refuse to accommodate that.. I prefer environments that can be adapted to my workflows - I don't want an environment that forces me to adapt to it. And it doesn't help that extensions tend to break on upgrades.

  • Interesting, I was not aware of libdecor. Sorry to hear that it degraded your experience - it really sucks when things like that happen. For what it's worth, I have seen some interesting themes which could be a reasonable solution to that problem - basically, they made the titlebar very thin or completely missing, except in the area where the window buttons were located, which were enlarged. Not sure which window manager they were made for though - I think it was either xfwm or openbox.

    But in any case, this is the problem with CSD - it doesn't really have a complete, holistic vision. It's great that they're trying to be innovative, but then they very quickly run into problems like the one described by the Factorio developer above. So now they're in a very awkward position that simply cannot meet everyone's needs.

    And yet, we never had this problem before they went on their quixotic CSD journey - that's why many people think it was a really bad idea.

  • Oracle

    Jump
  • Oof, that alt-text really hurts to read though.

    It'll be hilarious the first few times this happens.

  • I don't understand what change has to do with it. The problem is, lots of people have used it, tried it, criticized it, and been ignored. It has nothing to do with change.

    Change is fine, as long as the new version is better than the old one. Look at how KDE evolved. Sure, there were a lot of people that didn't like the 3 -> 4 transition (not me personally, I loved KDE4), but very few people lament what KDE has become today and it certainly is very different from what it was during the 3.x days.

    Personally, yes, I and a lot of other users have read why GNOME does not implement SSDs, and frankly their reasoning is not very convincing, but I don't think it matters that much. The fact is, users don't care why it's not implemented - if they don't like it, they're just going to criticize the project and that's just why GNOME is so widely hated.

    Trust me, I don't want to hate GNOME - I wish I could just make my life easy and use it as a sane default. But if it's not good, then I can't do that - and by "good", I mean how I define a good desktop, not whatever creative definition they dreamed up.

  • The funny thing is, before Google existed, people had no idea if their marketing attempts were working. Maybe they had some ways of knowing or guessing, but there was no way to know how accurate their metrics were. Internet-based advertising, and tracking-based advertising in particular was supposed to change that.

    And now that we sit here with a duopoly of advertising giants, we're back to the stage where marketers just have to trust that their provider is giving them good helpful information. And how are they supposed to know whether they really can believe it or not? They can't of course! So we've come right back to where we've started.

    But considering they still spent tons of money before Google and Facebook gave them these "analytics", it looks like they probably don't even care that much.

  • Ah yes, client-side decorations. One of their most controversial decisions (and for the GNOME project, that's really saying something). And yet, no amount of user feedback will ever break them out of their "we know your needs better than you do" attitude.

  • I would love to try making a game. Even games that I love to play still have a few minor things here and there that I wish were different. If I made the game myself, I could just change it myself and make it as close to perfect as I'm humanly able. Engines like Godot and similar make it so easy to do these days.

    But the competition is extremely fierce. There are so many games on Steam that the chances of "making it" and being the next Hades or similar are just not that good. I'm clearly not the only one with a dream like this. That and the fact that making a game is a ton of work. Graphics, audio, gameplay, balancing, marketing, social media🤮, etc.

    If I'm in the position someday where I don't need to turn a profit from it, then I may do it anyway, but I really feel bad for all the people who are trying to pursue their dream and yet may never make it there. We're in a golden age for the players, but for the creators, it's very difficult, to say the least.

  • Another thing, he confirms something I was worried about, in his comments on parallelism / Python without the Global Interpreter Lock (aka GIL): Some developments in the language serve rather the big companies, than the community and open source projects. For example, lock-less multi-threading in Python serves mostly the largest companies, while having little value for small projects.

    Absolutely agree. The significance of the GIL is heavily overstated in my opinion. There's a narrow set of use-cases where it matters, ie. if you must use threads and something like multiprocessing or a message queue (ie. Celery) doesn't do what you need. These are pretty rare circumstances, from my experience at least.

  • One principle I try to apply (when possible) comes from when I learned Haskell. Try to keep the low-level logical computations of your program pure, stateless functions. If their inputs are the same, they should always yield the same result. Then pass the results up to the higher level and perform your stateful transformations there.

    An example would be: do I/O at the high level (file, network, database I/O), and only do very simple data transformations at these levels (avoid it altogether if possible). Then do the majority of the computational logic in lower level, modular components that have no external side effects. Also, pass all the data around using read-only records (example: Python dataclasses with frozen=True) so you know that nothing is being mutated between these modules.

    This boundary generally makes it easier to test computational logic separately from stateful logic. It doesn't work all the time, but it's very helpful in making it easier to understand programs when you can structure programs this way.

  • Google wants to monopolize installing programs on your phone.

    There. That should make them cower in fear.

  • Interesting, I had never heard of ccache before, though yes, all good build systems (CMake, Ninja, etc.) should cache intermediate object files.

    But the projects I was working on were so large that even binary and unit test executables were so large that even they would take ~20 seconds to link. You can't use caching to alleviate that buildtime cost unfortunately.

  • I think it’s just because it is always recommended as an “easy” language that’s good for beginners.

    The only other thing it has going for it is that it has a REPL (and even that was shit until very recently), which I think is why it became popular for research.

    If that's the case, then why didn't Javascript take its place instead? It's arguably even better at Python in both of those areas....