myrrlyn

5 ms·

1.
by myrrlyn 4y ago
why isn't it inconsistent to allow creation of a record with missing components but to deny creation of a stack frame with missing components
2.
by myrrlyn 4y ago
good
3.
by myrrlyn 4y ago
yeah the actual titleholder to those is seattle
4.
by myrrlyn 4y ago
rustup is available in your package manager's repository
5.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
> C is an amazing language [citation needed] > the best way to use C is to use it to implement core algorithms and data structures is this a joke. you literally cannot write containers in C unless you commit to heap-allocating everyth
6.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
lol.
7.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
given that the sole purpose of software is to do what people want, "it didn't do what i want" is automatically incorrect behavior
8.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
is this going well for you
9.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
?
10.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
> Rust must stabilize its ABI if it seeks to be a useful systems language. ? no it mustn't. what's the c++ abi
11.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
> Having multiple implementations is a sign of a healthy programming language this is frequently taken as axiomatic but there's no actual support for it in reality. there are plenty of healthy single-implementation languages (go, ru
12.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
why not
13.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
(there are none)
14.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
every time this comes up i just have to ask - what do you think a language standard is or does - what languages with standards do you think standardization has helped (this is a trick question! do not answer "c" or "c++"
15.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
PRs welcome!
16.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
yeah, bounds written on the type decl shouldn't be repeated on the impl. the current typeck is not smart enough to do that but the ever-"nearly there we promise" replacement is. it'll land one day. they promise
17.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
the reason for > I still feel uneasy depending on so many other crates, but this seems to be a level of paranoia that others in the community don't share. Having 1000 dependencies sounds crazy to me! If there's a bug in even on
18.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
> What slice of Rust users are both such noobs they haven’t heard of cargo-edit and can’t Google it, but also so advanced they are interested in implementing Future manually to deepen their understanding? My colleagues. Many people are s
19.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
I am the author of a library that requires knowledge and awareness of integers that are strictly not wider than the general purpose register on the processor; the fact that `usize` is "the largest GPR" on every target Rust knows a
20.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
the good news is that a vector of any object can be reduced to a vector of integers by `Box`ing, and then you only incur a miss when you access the data, but not during every step you take to find the data
21.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
this magical thinking about standards documents is one of the primary incentives to not have one
22.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
yeah this is a common pattern in runtime permissions modelling. it's a really cool trick and i hope it gets more awareness from cases like this
23.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
the unstated part here is that in the absence of a compiler-visible atomic modelling system, an atomic model is implemented in `core::atomic` and LLVM. similarly, a `kcore` library could provide atomic types just like the way the LKMM is de
24.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
unless you plan to run `rustc` as a kernelspace application, anything in tier 2 (`core`, `alloc`, maybe `std` all compile and likely pass tests) is sufficient
25.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
putting my marker on 2030 as implementing a tokio runtime in kernelspace
26.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
a replacement to `alloc` would define a `Box` structure and tag it as `#[lang = "box"]` but not define any crashy APIs. this would accomplish the goal, but is an annoying patch that `alloc` should work to obviate upstream
27.
by myrrlyn 5y ago
There is some work in progress to make it easier to tell Cargo to build `core`/`alloc`, which in turn would allow projects to maintain patches atop them like disabling floating-point or oom-panicking APIs entirely. I suspect that this
28.
by myrrlyn 6y ago
lol
29.
by myrrlyn 6y ago
the main problem here is that C has the capability to declare mmap regions correctly: `volatile char[]` and Rust does not (`[Cell<u8>]` is close but not exactly right, and annoying) most rust folks who use mmap don't mark the r
30.
by myrrlyn 6y ago
for one thing, naming a C struct requires more words than naming a Rust struct; for another, the names of functions that operate on them

More ›