user2342

For example, clang defines __GNUC__=4 (and __GNUC_MINOR__=2, __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__=1) to claim compatibility with GCC 4.2.1.

Is this because Apple at some point stopped updating GCC because of the GPL license change? I think GCC 4.2.x was the last GCC licensed under GPLv2. Could be for compatibility reasons for Mac software.

I fully agree with the article, but the snow effect on the site is more distracting to readability than the shitty menu icons in Tahoe...

It's there, but yes the home page is very confusing. I lost interest very fast.

Weak arguments in the article with badly chosen examples.

If one wanted to criticize OCaml syntax, the need for .mli-files (with different syntax for function signatures) and the rather clunky module/signature syntax would be better candidates.

Thanks. Looks promising!

Rather for the classic 3x3x3 cube. I played with it in the 80ies, but never understood the concepts behind it.

Are there recommendable sources on how to learn solving/the concepts of a classic cube?

Perhaps a helpful addition: I collected my change money over several years (about 9kg in total, mostly lower valued coins, since the higher values can be spent easily).

After exchanging them on a bank into useful money: the average Euro coin weights about 3.6 grams and has an average value of 7 cents. :-)

Yes, that was my first thought too. The concept is similar.

Get rid if the source-files and put every function/method in its own "editor". However, as far as I remember navigation to/from callers was not possible in Smalltalk.

I'm using Sublime Text since shortly before 2.0 and Sublime Merge since day one. Yet, I'm slowly losing interest in ST because of lacking language integrations and probably won't do any future paid upgrades. However, Sublime Merge is still essential for me and a no-brainer.

My understanding is that the primary purpose of CompCert is to make formally verified code that is extracted into C also get compiled by a compiler that is formally verified to preserve the intended semantics.

Thats my understanding too. Code is written in high level systems generating C as output. C becomes rather an implementation detail in a hopefully, more or less completely verified tool chain.

They may work as expected (and probably will), but they are not covered by the proof.

Yes, I know, I mentioned the extraction.

My question was whether it can help detecting translation errors from the first step.

In case of coq-to-ocaml: is it feasible to do an extraction to OCaml on the translated code and compare it with the original?

I'm not fluent in Swift and async, but the line:

   for try await byte in bytes { ... }

By the end of the 80s, there were really only four major computer lines in the US. You had PCs (and their clones, of which there were many), Apple Macintosh, Commodore Amiga and Atari ST. For a short while there was also NeXT, but even with its big promises, great innovations and charismatic leader it didn’t survive as a hardware platform.

I rather see NeXT as a competitor in the market for Unix Workstations (Sun, HP, SGI, ...) and not as a competitor to the four mentioned (consumer) lines.

Ah, now I see. Thx.

That was also my first thought after looking at the examples.

I'm confused by this blog-post. In the table: what is the reg-ex pattern tested and against which input?

Some time ago we did a blind tasting of various colas (commercial, bottled, among the candidates were the typical brands).

Our simple result was, that there is a direct correlation between tastiness and the declared amount of sugar content...

Edit: so a plausible reason for Coke tasting better at McDonalds may be that they mix the syrup with slightly less water.

4% is tremendous for Linux. However, If I look at the data for the recent month, OSX was 21% in November and now roughly at 16% - as it was at the beginning of 2023.

What I want to say is: this data seems to be very volatile. I doubt, that it is a sufficient representation of the real world.

"Please don’t try to print it." :-)

Did Takata produce any Airbags, that don't need replacement?

It would be cool, if Apple extended this (or a similar new scheme) worldwide. Then it would be possible to rigorously throw out all garbage and badly implemented Apps from its own store, i.e. make it real shiny quality. Any rejected developer may then still publish their Apps in alternate ways.

Is the "Core Technology Fee" applied to free Apps?

Example: I make a free App that gets very popular but has a rather seasonal character. Then there is a possibility, that many users will reinstall the App each year for a short time. Then I would have to pay the 50ct per install each year?

Can anybody explain: do the possibilities of alternate distribution modes and fees (optionally) apply to all developers worldwide or only to EU based developers? I.e. is it developer based or App based?

And furthermore, I - as an EU based developer - have an App that is currently distributed worldwide. After agreeing to the alternate fees, they are only applied to the portion of sales from EU customers. Customers in the rest of the world are handled with the standard fees?

I don't buy their take that the safety issues are because Android Auto and CarPlay are buggy and have connection issues ...

Ack. From my experience, connection issues with Car Play are 100% due to the shitty software on the car's side and never on phone's side.

I regularly have connection problems (i.e. black screen in Car Play when entering the car - a Fiat with UConnect 5). They can _always_ be resolved by rebooting the cars's entertainment system. _Never_ by rebooting the phone.

Unfortunately, yes... ;-)

How many residential appliances benefit from three phase, and is the benefit outweighed by the additional cost of more copper for the additional wires?

Three phase wiring is so ubiquitous here, there is nearly no additional cost.

I have heard a three phase residential connection is common in some parts of Germany, lucky bastards.

Not some parts. It's common in all parts of Germany - and I think even common on the whole EU.