Programming thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Evil Whitey said:
Building a new Linux system, which terminal emulators do you recommend?
Click to expand...
If you use a desktop environment - whatever comes with it is easiest.
urxvt/rxvt-unicode - if you don't use a desktop environment and you want something basic that "just works".
st - if you're into minimalism and have the competency to compile/patch your own software.
foot - if you use Wayland.
Alacritty/Kitty/Ghostty - if you want a "modern" "blazingly fast" terminal emulator with GPU-acceleration and support for images (for some god forsaken reason).

Personally, I use st with several patches applied.
 
666edgy420 said:
I am a bitter old man and therefor a naturally skeptical when some 26 year old chick does something this in-depth about something conventionally boring AF, even for tech-chicks. But there are always the exception.
Click to expand...
It's surface level YT slop but her linkedin lists two years at Northrop. The takeaway should be that C++ is fat and exceptions are the gayest form of error handling. There's nothing wrong with being gay though, it's that C++ requires exceptions by design. It's the only way to handle errors from constructors so disallowing exceptions means disallowing constructors with failable operations. Now you need a second step outside of the constructor to "fully initialize" and guarantee your class invariant on "construction". Your public interface becomes static methods to simulate RAII.

You now have to remember to do this for every class written across 10 million lines of F35 code. If you compile with exceptions disabled, throwing will crash your program (wowie just like Rust). I skimmed the JSF C++ coding guidelines on this and it's left ambiguous:
AV Rule 71 pg 87 said:
Finally, the constructor should fully initialize an object (see Stroustrup [2], Appendix E and
AV Rule 72). If for some reason the constructor cannot fully initialize an object, some
provision must be made (and documented in the constructor) to ensure that clients cannot
access the uninitialized portions of the object.
Click to expand...
the constructor should fully initialize an object
$2.1 trillion program btw
 
A suitably long time has elapsed since its acquisition so I wanna show off a book I got.

20251208_145009.jpg
 
Belisarius Cawl said:
Doubleposting but idc because of the nature of this story, namely, Rust BTFO by JavaScript:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uUJZqJhV_o4View attachment 8265662
Click to expand...
>rust
>language is fast but super hard to use
>devs spend 90% of their time fighting the compiler
>end up writing bare bones code that's just barely functional, adding further optimisations is near impossible because of how difficult and convoluted everything is
>js
>language is slow but super easy to use
>devs spend 5% time laughing at funny type conversion quirks in the language, the rest is spent on the actual project
>end up with way more time to optimize what you wrote, which is also easier to do because the language is self explanatory and doesn't get in your way

mandatory:
 
GhastlyGhost said:
I just want to know why they were using JSON as part of an IPC connection to a Rust process. That sounds retarded.
Click to expand...
It's also ridiculously common. Ultimately, people just need a way to serialize data before sending it down the pipe/socket, and even retards can make sense of json. Plus, there are a billion json parser libraries that parse to native structs/objects in pretty much every modern lang.

As for the rust process part, you've seen the tranny marketing—Rust make code go zoom, so safe, much :wow:
 
DumbDude43 said:
>js
>end up with way more time to optimize what you wrote, which is also easier to do because the language is self explanatory and doesn't get in your way
Click to expand...
Seeing as how many sites run so poorly, I would say most developers forget this last step. Yes JS devs please pile on more JS slop on to your site for features nobody needed or asked for. As technology develops people somehow find new ways to make it run worse than it did before. It's comical. But yeah, behead a rust tranny or something.
 
666edgy420 said:
I am a bitter old man and therefor a naturally skeptical when some 26 year old chick does something this in-depth about something conventionally boring AF, even for tech-chicks. But there are always the exception.

This said, as a topic I have to admit its interesting, unique, and bait for the coomers for the ycombinator/reddit users by who is presenting it. But I cannot escape the notion she has tech-writers on staff with an entire studio behind it. I just wish she wouldn't drag everything out with filler and get to the effing point.
Click to expand...
y a t s said:
This person has always given me tranny vibes, but it's not as easy to tell for sure. Admittedly, things have gotten to a point where any time I find a "woman in tech" online I immediately assume it's a tranny (and usually I'm right).

I did find this a while ago:
View attachment 7842929
Click to expand...
I will die on this hill.

1765498672754.png

If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom