Koromix

23 ms·

1.
by Koromix 3mo ago
Interesting, it's similar to what I've done recently in Koffi 3, which is an FFI package for Node.js. I made my own C FFI layer, I did not use libffi. This works great, and got me close to statically-implemented NAPI modules. Benc
2.
by Koromix 4y ago
The official solutions, node-ffi and node-ffi-napi, are extremely slow, with an overhead hundred of times higher than it should be. I don't know what they do to be so slow. I'm making my own FFI module for Node.js, Koffi, as a muc
3.
Show HN: Koffi – low-overhead Node.js to C FFI(npmjs.com)
1 points by Koromix 4y ago|0 comments
4.
by Koromix 5y ago
I think that in a proper API, we could have: int process_handle = spawn("/bin/true", SP_PAUSED); // create process but don't execute, and return a handle // most API would take a process ha
5.
by Koromix 6y ago
Interesting, thanks for the tip! I'm gonna give it a go during the weekend.
6.
by Koromix 6y ago
I share this opinion as well. For centralized-repo style, which is what most teams need, the Git model has three problems: - It is hard to use. There's a reason most teams have a single or two Git "experts" to help everyone e
7.
by Koromix 9y ago
No, I mean that the scale of whale oil use was very very small compared to the scale of fossil fuels. So small, in fact, that if whale oil was on the graph I've linked above, you would barely see it moving above 0 in the 19th century.
8.
by Koromix 9y ago
The volume of whale oil used back in the 19th century is laughably anecdotic compared to petroleum. When we talk about our energy needs, scale matters a lot. So yes, when it comes to climate change and energy use, you can ignore the rest of
9.
by Koromix 9y ago
Worldwide, most of the energy that comes from wind and solar is a tiny fraction of the primary energy supply mix. Where it's growing it's mostly used for additional energy, not to replace the exisiting fossil-fuel consumption. Thi
10.
by Koromix 9y ago
Where the hell do you get your news from? The "massive wind and solar boom" exists only in the media. There's a rule of thumb you can follow here: the importance of a technology / energy source / whatever is inverse
11.
by Koromix 9y ago
You are right, there is pretty much nothing in biology that is. Humans are no exception, but until recently it was not a big problem because we did not have the power to significantly damage the climate and the biosphere (though the megafau
12.
by Koromix 9y ago
> People are scared of nuclear energy for the same reason that they're scared of taking an airplane. Even though it's technically and statistically very safe, the perceived risk appears much greater. [...] I'm more worried
13.
by Koromix 9y ago
Many / most people exisiting now also fail to grasp how bad the future will get on our current course. They fail to realize that modern life is anything but a short-term artefact of fossil fuel gluttonery (every person in the first wor
14.
by Koromix 9y ago
> Ultimately all life on Earth will die when the sun burns out or otherwise significantly changes its output. The only hope humanity has to outlive this is taking to the stars, and that won't happen without consuming a lot of resour
15.
by Koromix 9y ago
Maybe, but I hope there are better arguments for the current system than "it works better than the Soviet Union". All you have done here is establish that an extremely dysfunctional economy can either waste or fail to use its reso
16.
by Koromix 9y ago
Burning through the vast energy and natural resources at our disposal is what has allowed us to "lift" so many people out of poverty. "Proposerity" and "progress" are not a miracle of economic thinking, or tech
17.
by Koromix 9y ago
Probably nothing. This is wide-scale bike-shedding[1], basically. The real problems our unsustainable civilization faces (population overshoot, energy and fossil fuel shortage, ecological collapse, unsustainable agriculture, climate chang
18.
by Koromix 9y ago
Past civilizations did not fail because they slowed down. They slowed down while they were failing . I mean, this is what failing is. They failed at getting enough food and energy to feed their growing population, they failed at managing t
19.
by Koromix 9y ago
"The pace of the world is here to stay, people will just figure out how to sustain it with new stuff". I don't know how you can think that. The pace of our world requires incredibly huge amounts of energy, which we get from f
20.
by Koromix 9y ago
That's interesting, thanks for the information, I'll probably spend a good portion of tomorrow reading up on this. Geoengineering is scary. Honestly, I am extremely pessimistic about mankind's ability to work on such a scale.
21.
by Koromix 9y ago
27% is better, though from a quick look it applies only to the US, and in Europe it looks closer to 15%. I need to take time tomorrow to find good sources on this. I'm not convinced by carbon storage, though I don't know enough ab
22.
by Koromix 9y ago
It was an answer to parent's "It's simply a matter of scaling up." comment. I agree with you that the exact same fact is true of nuclear. And wind too, while we're at it. I don't think there's a way out of
23.
by Koromix 9y ago
Photovoltaic capacity is expected to be around 4674 GW in 2050 (currently around 150, I think) [1]. Let's be optimistic and say it'll actually be around 20000 GW, just for the fun of it, and let's ignore all of the variabilit
24.
by Koromix 9y ago
Of course, everyone that does not buy into the myth of the Star Trek future that surely awaits mankind has to be a religious fool. Perhaps some of us have realised that, like many (now disappeared) past civilizations, our technological civi
25.
by Koromix 10y ago
I don't hate them. I've used python more than once, and will continue to do so. And I think it's great teaching material. It's a good scripting language. But I think its drawbacks far outweigh its advantages for large
26.
by Koromix 10y ago
I don't consider the Ruby ecosystem to be a good example of much. Idiomatic Ruby code is much slower and usually not more maintainable than C++. Actually, it may even be worse thanks to dynamic typing, which makes refactoring much more
27.
by Koromix 10y ago
> Like, for instance, class generation, and extending methods. This is precisely the kind of thing that leads to unmaintainable "magic" code, even though it can still be useful but with extreme moderation. So I don't see
28.
by Koromix 10y ago
> OO, dynamism, late binding None of these are required for ease of development. At least the first two often result in precisely the opposite. HLLs are not required to focus on slow abstractions. For example, homogeneous arrays of tagge
29.
by Koromix 10y ago
> That doesn't sound like a cache miss. Knowing Android, A cache miss is probably the least of your worries. My example was meant to illustrate the user input problem. From what I know about Android, the absymal performance is very
30.
by Koromix 10y ago
You're looking at this problem backward. For example, you mention user input. Users may need a second to click or touch a button, but when they do the software should react instantly , and that does not leave you that many cycles. My

More ›