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/)B
Posts
2
Comments
273
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • That's called a mailing list

    /s

  • I think generally C compilers prefer to keep the stack intact for debugging and such.

  • Okay, yeah, I was indeed reading your original reply as a criticism of one of the people involved (presumably the security researcher), rather than as a criticism of the post title. Sorry for misunderstanding.

    Apparently GCC does indeed do tail-call optimization at -O2: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-foptimize-sibling-calls

    But in that case, I'm not sure why the solution to the denial of service vulnerability isn't just "compile with -foptimize-sibling-calls."

  • ...what is your point? Some software (in a language that doesn't have tail-recursion optimization) used recursion to handle user-provided input, and indeed it broke. Someone wrote to explain that that's a potential vulnerability, the author agreed, and fixed it. Who here is misunderstanding how computers implement recursion?

  • TypeScript is a language, and traditionally languages are considered separate from their implementations. When I first saw the headline I hoped maybe it meant a non-JS runtime for compiled TS, and I'm well aware of the difference. Yes, that would be a much larger undertaking than porting the compiler to a new language, but the headline doesn't indicate how large a project this is, and Microsoft certainly has the resources to write a new backend (even a native-code one) for the TS compiler.

  • What about Julia?

  • Is Fortran really your favorite language?

  • neeeeeeerd

  • What's wrong with the Windows one, and/or what's better about Gnome's or KDE's?

  • They did consider making environment-manipulation functions atomic; the problem is that there's simply no way to guarantee that everything that can manipulate your process's environment is actually beholden to whatever atomic interface Rust provides. I could be misremembering, but I think there was even some discussion with glibc maintainers about whether this could be made safe, and the answer was basically "haha no."

  • What virtual desktops do you prefer? I don't find Mac OS's significantly better, and I haven't spent much time with very many Linux window managers other than i3 (and that was years ago).

  • Actually, it's pretty surprising to me that a small university lab is forcing a specific version of a specific OS on you.

  • I agree with Linus's argument here. I also think the selected quotes are the main points in that argument, not just "inflammatory minor excerpts."

  • This headline is based on responses to the question "what are your biggest worries about the future of Rust", not "are you worried about the future of Rust." So of course most of the respondents answered with a concern about the language.

  • "don't quote the shouty bit; it's not all shouty"

  • Marcan pretty clearly isn't saying that feature requests wore him down. He's saying that people saying "what you've built so far isn't useful" wore him down.

    (Plus, your original analogy about parents and children is completely lost by now.)

  • Not sure if this was intended as a response to me?

  • Presumably by people like Marcan working to make it happen, rather than by random people complaining it's not already done.

  • The bit you quoted from the post explicitly said "most x86 laptops", not "all".