HN user
Wikipedia has a table for how many papers each project produced:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Open_Infrastructure_f...
According to this, Rosetta@home (which is like Folding@home that runs on BOINC) produced 234 papers.
Does that in multiple places. Maybe they wanted a way to quickly revert it? Or enable on countries where they think they can get away with it?
iirc pthread uses the same ABI under the hood, only its compiled into the libc
100% period.
Would it be possible for someone within a compatible jurisdiction to mirror SQLite3 and provide it under some license such that it could be used by anyone?
It's common among Rust projects (the standard library also uses it).
Apache 2 has a patent grant so it's preferred by companies, but is not compatible with GPLv2, and MIT is compatible with GPLv2.
Source: https://prev.rust-lang.org/id-ID/faq.html#why-a-dual-mit-asl...
Check out: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQeDnFUNW-Q
And gate starts at 4:49. Or gate starts at 6:27. The trick is to make some gears not stationary, moving along as other gears push them.
Any updated (modern) browser should be able to see webp just fine, I'd rather just serve it without a backup plan if I'm planning to have webp in my website.
But to know via scientific method requires proof (or disproof) by experimentation
Fair enough. But it is needed to point out that there's a catch in that in order to use dynamic dispatch (subclasses, interfaces, ...) you'd still need to use pointers in C++.
Deep down the problem could be rephrased as "there are no structs in Java". In C# for example you could have a vector of structs and enjoy linear memory access.
If you aren't using OOP features (such as inheritance), you're not really doing OOP, despite using C++.
In the case of C++ I'd put something like: you can use free or costly abstractions, and OOP in general has a preference towards costly ones.
Also vector is a weird point to make, it's been some time I had to deal with Java (luckily) but arrays there are also linear AFAIK. And there are GCs that have a bump allocator for new objects (not sure if Java fits here), so cache would benefit more than in sparse malloc allocations in C/C++.
(As with OO) depends heavily on implementation, but my 2 cents is that functional doesn't apply as much constraints to optimization.
If a compiler is sophisticated enough a functional program should perform as well as a procedural one that uses a comparable garbage collector. But of course real compilers have shortcomings.
I recommend taking a read at Haskell's wiki performance article[1] to have an understanding of the shortcomings that are specific to Haskell.