arka2147483647

Often the biggest blocker on moving to a new programming language, is the cost of re-writing everything.

Cue some story here on a bank or airline somewhere still relying on cobol backend servers.

These LLM conversions really seem to make modernization of large parts software layers possible!

There is deep history here. For most of the past centuries, most Europe was from where you immigrated FROM, not where you immigrated TO.

There just is not the kind of immigration culture as in America. Some people don’t even have a notion why anyone would want to come to Europe.

Could those have been intercepted or suppressed somehow?

Its important to understand that in Game Dev a ’git clone’, aka ’p4 sync’, can be a terabyte of stuff.

Git is bad at such volumes of binary assets, textures, models, sounds, etc.

I’ll add some more

- The P4 cpp api was apparently designed before any modern Cpp std lib was available. And is at best archaic, and stringly to use.

- P4 encoding support is pain in the ass to configure. And ensist on adding or removing bom to files.

Industrial logics are really practical and allow you to write all sorts of sophisticated properties that your system should satisfy in a very succinct way.

It sounds like what you think as positives are exactly the things parent comment thinks as negatives.

The best part of void* is that it is very terse. Both in definitions, and in access.

All cpp alternatives are more wordy.

I wonder how this conversation wound go if the was an as terse, but also typesafe cpp alternative.

There is LPCAMM2, if manufacturers want to use it.

So, it does not have to be soldered.

I wonder if this is just a way to recycle the chips that did not bin good enough to used for DGX Spark?

I miss the days when this would just have been named win2wasm.

These branded projects become difficult to remember when everything has a random non-mnemonic name.

If you are a DIY, you might use a tool once a week, or once a year. A pro might use a tool everyday, all day.

A different durability requirement.

A Ryobi is not bad, if it fills your needs, but might not be enough for heavy use.

All of those platforms are HUGE and well worth the hassle.

I think Valve is trying to leverage the Steam Storefront into a full-fledged Platform. It is not quite there yet.

As such, they have invested a lot of effort into the compatibility layers, which allows gamedevs to support Steam Devices with no extra effort, or minimal effort, which is very important business vise.

As a gamedev, you essentially get a bonus platform for your game without extra dev effort!

Proton represents Valve's failure to make Linux gaming attractive to game studios.

Not even those that have Android/Linux NDK builds, bother with porting to GNU/Linux.

It is a huge hassle to make a new build to a new platform. You double build system, release management, and testing. Compared to just one plat. Games are complicated, and testing all the dynamic behaviour is also complicated.

Making just a Win32 build really saves resources.

Also Win32 has been a stable api for a long time. Linux apis tend to change, and old games don't get re-built. The win32 build is therefore also provably a lot more long lived, compered to anything you build on linux.

Thats also important because of the Dont Kill Games effort and so on.

The important part of Hardware, is Software

After all, if the Software does not work, its just a Paperweight

The answer is so obvious

A tangent, but what is Obvious depends on what you know.

Often experts don't explain the things they think are Obvious, but those things are only Obvious to them, because they are the expert.

We should all kind, and explain also the Obvious things those who do not know.

The advantage, as i see it, is that this could be done incrementally. Every new router/firmware/os could add support, until support is ubiquitous.

Contrast this with ip6, which is a completely new system, and thus has a chicken and egg problem.

Surely you could have compiler types for 128, 256, 512, etc, and then choose the correct codepath with simple if statement at runtime?

This is a EU initiative. Confusingly, EU is often called Europe in spoken/non-official speech. Sort of the same way it is said that Washington does something, when it is the US gov doing something.

Smart home and lighting standard Matter over Thread requires it. Discovered this after i bought some Ikea smart lights. Though you don't need a public IP6, a local static IP6 with SLAAC is enough.

Delaware C-corp, UK Ltd is OK too

Neither of which is in EU, which is exactly the point. Should be an EU one which is usable...

Sadly, all the bug trackers are full of bugs relating to char*. So you very much do those by accident. And in C, fixed width strings are not in any way rare or unusual. Go to any c codebase you will find stuff like:

   char buf[12];
   sprintf(buf, "%s%s", this, that); // or
   strcat(buf, ...) // or
   strncpy(buf, ...) // and so on..

For someone who is not a rust programmer, but would like to keep up to date, can somebody tell me what "Tier 4" is. And why must it be quoted?

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/container/vector/reserve.h...

says

Increase the capacity of the vector (the total number of elements that the vector can hold without requiring reallocation) to a value that's greater or equal to new_cap.

I belive that the behaviour of reserve() is implementation defined.

All the functions mentioned above, even the cpp one, will reserve atleast the number of elements given to resize() or resize_exact(), but may reserve more than that.

After some pondering, and reading the rust documentation, I came to the conclusion that te difference is this: reserve() will grow the underlaying memory area to the next increment, or more than one increment, while reserve_exact() will only grow the underlaying memory area to the next increment, but no more than that.

Eg, if grow strategy is powers of two, and we are at pow(2), then reserve() may skip from pow(2) to pow(4), but reserve_exact() would be constrained to pow(3) as the next increment.

Or so i read the documentation. Hopefully someone can confirm?

Honestly, i doubt it. That exposes many details to the programmers that many of them would prefer not to know.

The higher level the language, the less interest there is to manually manage memory. It is just something to offload to the gc/runtime/etc.

So, i think this is a no-go. The market wont accept it.

QuickShell - it should be called

I think you would find it very difficult to find even a single game which has done this.

Seems to me, that to some Linux has come to mean all things Unix-ly

The article mentions ANSI-C at places. So seems like the old c standard is targeted.

Respectfully, the value of a c++ wrapper/implementation comes from the fact that it behaves like one would expect a C++ classes to behave. That is, RAII, and so on.

If the underlying resource can not behave like a class, it would be better to expose a free function style api, eg:

    Handle h = ResourceGet();
    ResourceDoSomething(h);
    h.release();