HN user
I for one really enjoy the historical anecdotes you get in the "NOTES", "PORTABILITY" or even "BUGS" sections. But I do realise that my context is mostly recreational, work doesn't really require glueing POSIX commands together.
What's the state of things regarding statement expressions? Are there any intentions of adding them? I think I've read Meneide make an offhand comment about that.
The one in progress from Trump et al.?
Does your Wikipedia mirror include media? Text-only wiki seems a bit bleak to me, but including all media would devour so much storage, I just haven't been able to justify using that much of my limited storage space
Programming is moreso based on recursive problem solving. (Most) language does have some recursive structures, but these become quite difficult to think about after just a few levels, and really aren't what you'd normally consider to be "good language", e.g.
The dog's owner's house's roof's angle's similarity to an equilateral triangle is remarkable.
I always wonder, with how convoluted these prompts/answers become, how much accuracy is sacrificed to uphold these silly constraints.
An unlobotomised model would surely perform better when asked the same question without all the unnecessary cruft to evade moderation?
That's absolutely not the C/C++ philosophy
while it is not explicitly written out like this anymore, the standard charter used to say
Trust the programmer.
Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done.
for 30 something years, which sounds similar to what the other poster said.
The current charter[1] only says "Allow programming freedom" which I'd still interpret to mean something similar.
1: https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n3280.htm
(edited due to formatting messups)
You've lost me here a little, sorry. If you have little to no dynamic allocations, meaning all of your memory will be automatic stack memory, then memory management wouldn't be much of an issue to begin with. But the most common pattern to me seems to be memory that is allocated upfront, and then treated as-if it were automatic in a hot loop, so not reallocated or moved etc., and then deallocated after the hot part is over. How does GC interfere with these use-cases, because I'd imagine it would only kick in after, when you'd want to deallocate anyway, but do this automatically without you messing up.
((x == 1)) && printf 'it'"'"'s 1\n' although I'm not sure how useful this actually is, but it is a nice-to-know
Do you know whether that capacity is regularly reinvestigated? Because if not you could get the certification, wait a couple of years, and then dismantle all infrastructure while still reaping the, if ephemeral, benefits.
all malloc is defined to do is to return a pointer to storage of appropriate size and alignment, which can easily be done in pure standard C by defining a static array and chopping it up as needed. that's not a brilliant way of doing that, but achievable without leaving standard C