Search
483 results for “zirias”
-
-
I did say "with the #terminfo database files".
unibilium uses those database files. I don't remember offhand the other fairly prominent example that I encountered years ago. It was go or rust or something. There are several direct to terminfo database libraries in C#, too. Mono uses one, for starters.
Not only does the world usually expect terminfo nowadays, it even often works directly to the database files, no libterminfo or (n)curses in the picture at all.
-
I did say "with the #terminfo database files".
unibilium uses those database files. I don't remember offhand the other fairly prominent example that I encountered years ago. It was go or rust or something. There are several direct to terminfo database libraries in C#, too. Mono uses one, for starters.
Not only does the world usually expect terminfo nowadays, it even often works directly to the database files, no libterminfo or (n)curses in the picture at all.
-
I did say "with the #terminfo database files".
unibilium uses those database files. I don't remember offhand the other fairly prominent example that I encountered years ago. It was go or rust or something. There are several direct to terminfo database libraries in C#, too. Mono uses one, for starters.
Not only does the world usually expect terminfo nowadays, it even often works directly to the database files, no libterminfo or (n)curses in the picture at all.
-
I did say "with the #terminfo database files".
unibilium uses those database files. I don't remember offhand the other fairly prominent example that I encountered years ago. It was go or rust or something. There are several direct to terminfo database libraries in C#, too. Mono uses one, for starters.
Not only does the world usually expect terminfo nowadays, it even often works directly to the database files, no libterminfo or (n)curses in the picture at all.
-
I did say "with the #terminfo database files".
unibilium uses those database files. I don't remember offhand the other fairly prominent example that I encountered years ago. It was go or rust or something. There are several direct to terminfo database libraries in C#, too. Mono uses one, for starters.
Not only does the world usually expect terminfo nowadays, it even often works directly to the database files, no libterminfo or (n)curses in the picture at all.
-
Oh, I've got no idea how #Nix handles #crosscompilation. From what I understand, that's something @qyliss worked on.
-
It's a good thing that I didn't say that it was, then. (-:
The whole point is that contrary to what @zirias said there are multiple independent libraries in different softwares and using #termcap/#terminfo directly does *not* mean using (n)curses, nor any lower-level library that it provides.
The world these days, especially the world outwith C/C++, rather works on the presumption that everyone is terminfo. #FreeBSD has brought porting up short several times.
-
It's a good thing that I didn't say that it was, then. (-:
The whole point is that contrary to what @zirias said there are multiple independent libraries in different softwares and using #termcap/#terminfo directly does *not* mean using (n)curses, nor any lower-level library that it provides.
The world these days, especially the world outwith C/C++, rather works on the presumption that everyone is terminfo. #FreeBSD has brought porting up short several times.
-
It's a good thing that I didn't say that it was, then. (-:
The whole point is that contrary to what @zirias said there are multiple independent libraries in different softwares and using #termcap/#terminfo directly does *not* mean using (n)curses, nor any lower-level library that it provides.
The world these days, especially the world outwith C/C++, rather works on the presumption that everyone is terminfo. #FreeBSD has brought porting up short several times.
-
It's a good thing that I didn't say that it was, then. (-:
The whole point is that contrary to what @zirias said there are multiple independent libraries in different softwares and using #termcap/#terminfo directly does *not* mean using (n)curses, nor any lower-level library that it provides.
The world these days, especially the world outwith C/C++, rather works on the presumption that everyone is terminfo. #FreeBSD has brought porting up short several times.
-
It's a good thing that I didn't say that it was, then. (-:
The whole point is that contrary to what @zirias said there are multiple independent libraries in different softwares and using #termcap/#terminfo directly does *not* mean using (n)curses, nor any lower-level library that it provides.
The world these days, especially the world outwith C/C++, rather works on the presumption that everyone is terminfo. #FreeBSD has brought porting up short several times.
-
@lobocode @meena
PR created: https://github.com/scovl/checkrc/pull/5Mina, no, not "just your headache", the portable subset of make simply doesn't cut it, and doing complex things in make is possible, but hard and quickly becomes unreadable, that's why well-written frameworks are a nice thing ...
I personally have my very own for #gmake (which I use for all portable stuff). When writing stuff specifically for #FreeBSD, I very much prefer using what's already there.
-
@lobocode @meena
PR created: https://github.com/scovl/checkrc/pull/5Mina, no, not "just your headache", the portable subset of make simply doesn't cut it, and doing complex things in make is possible, but hard and quickly becomes unreadable, that's why well-written frameworks are a nice thing ...
I personally have my very own for #gmake (which I use for all portable stuff). When writing stuff specifically for #FreeBSD, I very much prefer using what's already there.
-
@lobocode @meena
PR created: https://github.com/scovl/checkrc/pull/5Mina, no, not "just your headache", the portable subset of make simply doesn't cut it, and doing complex things in make is possible, but hard and quickly becomes unreadable, that's why well-written frameworks are a nice thing ...
I personally have my very own for #gmake (which I use for all portable stuff). When writing stuff specifically for #FreeBSD, I very much prefer using what's already there.
-
@lobocode @meena
PR created: https://github.com/scovl/checkrc/pull/5Mina, no, not "just your headache", the portable subset of make simply doesn't cut it, and doing complex things in make is possible, but hard and quickly becomes unreadable, that's why well-written frameworks are a nice thing ...
I personally have my very own for #gmake (which I use for all portable stuff). When writing stuff specifically for #FreeBSD, I very much prefer using what's already there.
-
@lobocode @meena
PR created: https://github.com/scovl/checkrc/pull/5Mina, no, not "just your headache", the portable subset of make simply doesn't cut it, and doing complex things in make is possible, but hard and quickly becomes unreadable, that's why well-written frameworks are a nice thing ...
I personally have my very own for #gmake (which I use for all portable stuff). When writing stuff specifically for #FreeBSD, I very much prefer using what's already there.
-
Ok, I couldn't resist any more. Here's #French #qXmoji. Or, something like that ...? 🙈
Dear native-speakers, if I messed up TOO badly, help me out and send patches / pull requests 🤣🍻
(edit: ah great, I directly spot the first typo in this screenshot ... gonna fix immediately. Still, the hardest thing is to express technical things in french, I guess that counts as "domain specific language" and I really have NO idea how to do it)
-
@lobocode The first hunk is classic #TOCTOU ... you already check whether fopen() succeeds, there's no way to "do better". Between your check with access() and opening with fopen(), anything about the file could change.
(edit: Ok, not "classic", the classic TOCTOU would be omitting the check on fopen() assuming it MUST succeed after checking with access(), which would be plain wrong. Your variant is just a bit of unnecessary code 😉)
-
@cobbpg @jos1264 Just look at the size of the JVM. If the benchmark is your typical #C64 hand-written assembly code, this certainly qualifies for "bloat" 😈
Regarding features, yes, #kickassembler has an insanely powerful macro language, actually more like a full-blown scripting language in disguise. That makes it quite popular among demo coders, for example.
What it lacks (at least for my "taste") is a linker. Defining your memory map in a "linker script" and then just filling segments (including e.g. #zeropage) in individual modules, leaving the hard stuff to the linker, is a whole new level compared to traditional toolchains more similar to what you had on the real machine.
I can easily use whatever language I like to precalculate my triangulated sprite flight paths or whatever ... but I can't replace a linker with external tools 😂
-
If there are no takers, I might be seduced to add #French myself.
TBH, this is kind of a threat to all french-speaking ppl. It's the only language I ever learned besides German and English, and school is a *very* long time ago. It will probably end up somewhat similar to your typical chinese user's manual 😂
-
Got a vertical prototype working, the tooltips in the "normal" emoji tabs are translated 🥳
🍺o'clock, later ... 🍻
-
@jos1264 Or you could just use any text editor you like (#vim works pretty fine with assembly code), one of the many cross-assemblers available (e.g. ca65 from #cc65 comes with an object-code format and a linker for that, which is awseome for organizing larger projects) and control your build with good old #make.
But hey, if using monsters based on #chromium and #javascript (vs-code) and a #java vm (kickassembler) feels "right" for you targeting this tiny old machine writing lean and efficient code ... 🤷♂️😏
-
@jos1264 Or you could just use any text editor you like (#vim works pretty fine with assembly code), one of the many cross-assemblers available (e.g. ca65 from #cc65 comes with an object-code format and a linker for that, which is awseome for organizing larger projects) and control your build with good old #make.
But hey, if using monsters based on #chromium and #javascript (vs-code) and a #java vm (kickassembler) feels "right" for you targeting this tiny old machine writing lean and efficient code ... 🤷♂️😏
-
@mpts @lobocode I can't fully agree. "Make" is declarative by nature, and a fully declarative Makefile contains nothing but variable expansions and rules with recipes. I *would* agree that #bmake makes it easier to write such a Makefile in many cases for its powerful expansion modifiers (some of which you can't even simulate with gmake's custom functions, like substitutions using regular expressions). But OTOH, it also makes some "procedural" style easier by e.g. providing a "for" loop that runs at parse time (not available in #gmake).
That said, "!=" is a poor replacement for $(wildcard ): "!=" also runs at parse time, $(wildcard ) OTOH is a function only executed when needed for expansion. #bmake offers the "${:!...!}" expansion that would be a better match here (still with the drawback of having to call some external tool of course).
Of course, any "if" (and similar) forces immediate expansion of its arguments in both make flavors, therefore breaking the "pure" declarative style.
-
@mpts @lobocode I can't fully agree. "Make" is declarative by nature, and a fully declarative Makefile contains nothing but variable expansions and rules with recipes. I *would* agree that #bmake makes it easier to write such a Makefile in many cases for its powerful expansion modifiers (some of which you can't even simulate with gmake's custom functions, like substitutions using regular expressions). But OTOH, it also makes some "procedural" style easier by e.g. providing a "for" loop that runs at parse time (not available in #gmake).
That said, "!=" is a poor replacement for $(wildcard ): "!=" also runs at parse time, $(wildcard ) OTOH is a function only executed when needed for expansion. #bmake offers the "${:!...!}" expansion that would be a better match here (still with the drawback of having to call some external tool of course).
Of course, any "if" (and similar) forces immediate expansion of its arguments in both make flavors, therefore breaking the "pure" declarative style.
-
@mpts @lobocode I can't fully agree. "Make" is declarative by nature, and a fully declarative Makefile contains nothing but variable expansions and rules with recipes. I *would* agree that #bmake makes it easier to write such a Makefile in many cases for its powerful expansion modifiers (some of which you can't even simulate with gmake's custom functions, like substitutions using regular expressions). But OTOH, it also makes some "procedural" style easier by e.g. providing a "for" loop that runs at parse time (not available in #gmake).
That said, "!=" is a poor replacement for $(wildcard ): "!=" also runs at parse time, $(wildcard ) OTOH is a function only executed when needed for expansion. #bmake offers the "${:!...!}" expansion that would be a better match here (still with the drawback of having to call some external tool of course).
Of course, any "if" (and similar) forces immediate expansion of its arguments in both make flavors, therefore breaking the "pure" declarative style.
