Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: > Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far > towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they > all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine). Like Hurd. > Of

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Andrew Gwozdziewycz
On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:47:06PM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: > > On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote: > > >>> [...] > > > > > >

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 03:47:06PM +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: > On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote: > >>> [...] > > > > > > When you want to promote a new language: > > 1 - write a boostrap compiler (for

Re: [dev] "Note On Webkit Versions"

2016-05-02 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Mon, 02 May 2016, Leo Gaspard wrote: > To get closer to the original topic, I think rust is among the best > choices for a webkit replacement. A webkit replacement *will* be huge, > bloated and sucky. It's pretty sad, but most of us need a way to access > sucky websites that

Re: [dev] "Note On Webkit Versions"

2016-05-02 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 04/30/2016 03:04 PM, ra...@openmailbox.org wrote: > On 2016-04-30 11:47, Kajetan Jasztal wrote: >> how about servo[1]? aims for memory security and fast parallel rendering >> >> [1] https://servo.org/ > > There is a lot of hype about rust being 'memory safe' but where is the > proof? AFAICT,

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Leo Gaspard
On 05/02/2016 04:40 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 11:12:08AM +1000, Timothy Rice wrote: >>> [...] > > > When you want to promote a new language: > 1 - write a boostrap compiler (for kernel profile and other profiles) > in the current "system language" (I

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Mon, 02 May 2016, Marc Collin wrote: > Something better than using fancy (aka: complex) languages with > garbage collector, memory safeness, etc. is to formal verify your C > program[0]. There's even a kernel, seL4 that's been formally verified > to not contain certain

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Marc Collin
If you think about suckless as keeping things simple and not wasting computer resources, this little story is relevant -- John von Neumann, when he first heard about FORTRAN in 1954, was unimpressed and asked "why would you want more than machine language?" One of von Neumann's students at

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Kamil Cholewiński
On Mon, 02 May 2016, FRIGN wrote: > Benjamin Franklin said this: > “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they > deserve, either one.” > And this defines what it's all about. > C is all about freedom, and any measure a higher level language

Re: [dev] C, gcc and armv8

2016-05-02 Thread Sylvain BERTRAND
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:00:30AM +0200, Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Hi there, > > On 2 May 2016 at 07:25, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > > Just to raise awareness on this issue: > > > > - gcc is now c++98 boot-strapable only. > > Where do you have this information from?

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Timothy Rice
Thanks FRIGN, both your emails have given me a bit to think about. ~ Tim

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread FRIGN
On Mon, 2 May 2016 17:57:15 +1000 Timothy Rice wrote: Hey Timothy, > I'd be more interested to hear about what actually makes C inherently > better than Go. I quite like C: it forces you to think about the machine a > little bit, and it disincentivises large

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread FRIGN
On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:12:08 +1000 Timothy Rice wrote: Hey Timothy, > A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed > to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus > should usually be preferred. It appears that most

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread Timothy Rice
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 09:36:56AM +0200, hiro wrote: > the popularity of a language amongst hipsters is quite irrelevant. C > is still the most used language in programs that actually do anything > (i.e. not some "app" written in a markup language). Lol, nice :) However, arguing to tradition

Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

2016-05-02 Thread hiro
the popularity of a language amongst hipsters is quite irrelevant. C is still the most used language in programs that actually do anything (i.e. not some "app" written in a markup language).

Re: [dev] C, gcc and armv8

2016-05-02 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi there, On 2 May 2016 at 07:25, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote: > Just to raise awareness on this issue: > > - gcc is now c++98 boot-strapable only. Where do you have this information from? At least to me it looks like that gcc-5.3.0 is still bootstrappable without any