Last time I checked we don’t live in the 90s anymore and those computers look like mere toys compared to the CPUs of today. Laughably so when even a dinky Intel m3 is many times faster.
But that doesn’t happen and that’s why Rust has run-time bounds checking. There’s even multiple posts on the rust-lang mailing list about how to aboid the run-time checks. Gerald Butler, to be frank, was talking out of their ass.
But he’s not even defending it in a way that makes sense. Not even the Rust developers claim there are no runtime checks.
Subscripts start at zero, like in most programming languages, so the first name is names[0] and the second name is names[1]. The above example prints The second name is: Brian. If you try to use a subscript that is not in the array, you will get an error: array access is bounds-checked at run-time. Such errant access is the source of many bugs in other systems programming languages.
It’s more simple than that. There’s no way a compiler could bounds check at compile-time a buffer allocated at runtime to read in data from an arbitrary-sized file. I’m pretty sure that would have a prerequisite of solving the halting problem.
Rust does have runtime checks. Where did you get this nonsense that it didn’t? How could a compiler do bounds checking for buffers allocated at runtime with an unknown-at-compile-time size?
But if he was doing so with views you agreed with it’d be just fine. This is like when you snowflakes whine to “Shutup you’re just an entertainer!” unless that entertainet spouts political views you like and then there’s no complaints. Grow the fuck up.
Forrrihht anan se time comm
att ure Drihhtin wollde ben borenn i iss middellærd
forr all mannkinne nede he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
all swillke summ he wollde and whær he wollde borenn ben
he chæs all att hiss wille.
Oh right, that's because English evolves and changes and is defined by common usage.
I haven't been alive that long, but I remember when "they" became the "socially correct" replacement for "he" in the late 70's or early 80's. That's hardly 500+ years. (Doest thee protest, thy anger is great!) Now even that abuse is not enough, we're getting "zee" and "zey" thrown into the mix. Apparently "they" doesn't mean what you think, since "they" just wasn't unsexist enough.
I didn't realize that writers like Early of Chesterfield, John Ruskin and William Shakespeare were only from the 1970s and 80s. Oh did you not know that they used the singular they centuries ago?
They has a singular meaning as well. Anyone who isn't just a fake Grammar Nazi would know this. It has been used a such since the Middle English period. Go back under your bridge, troll.
Exactly. It's been around in common usage longer than Modern English has even existed. Usages can be found dating back to the late 1400s during the period of Middle English.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked we don’t live in the 90s anymore and those computers look like mere toys compared to the CPUs of today. Laughably so when even a dinky Intel m3 is many times faster.
Except that ARM doesn’t list the A7 or A53 as vulnerable.
https://developer.arm.com/supp...
So Eben knows just as much as ARM does.
He probably couldn’t leave earlier contractually or he’d lose his options.
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
Sure. I think we both agree on that.
But that doesn’t happen and that’s why Rust has run-time bounds checking. There’s even multiple posts on the rust-lang mailing list about how to aboid the run-time checks. Gerald Butler, to be frank, was talking out of their ass.
But he’s not even defending it in a way that makes sense. Not even the Rust developers claim there are no runtime checks.
Subscripts start at zero, like in most programming languages, so the first name is names[0] and the second name is names[1]. The above example prints The second name is: Brian. If you try to use a subscript that is not in the array, you will get an error: array access is bounds-checked at run-time. Such errant access is the source of many bugs in other systems programming languages.
Emphasis added.
http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~cs...
It’s more simple than that. There’s no way a compiler could bounds check at compile-time a buffer allocated at runtime to read in data from an arbitrary-sized file. I’m pretty sure that would have a prerequisite of solving the halting problem.
Rust does have runtime checks. Where did you get this nonsense that it didn’t? How could a compiler do bounds checking for buffers allocated at runtime with an unknown-at-compile-time size?
You could wrap all your computers in tinfoil. If it works for mind control rays on your head it might for this.
My bad. Missed your sarcasm. ^_^;
Yes, because Spectre = Meltdown. Try reading.
Wrong. They are the same class of bug around speculative execution but they are not the same thing.
Of course it’s a flaw. It’s an unintended side-effect of speculative execution.
Also Spectre and Meltdown are not the same thing.
No, KPTI doesn’t help for Spectre.
They didn’t say AMD was vulnerable to Meltdown. Do you have the reading comprehension skills of stone?
But if he was doing so with views you agreed with it’d be just fine. This is like when you snowflakes whine to “Shutup you’re just an entertainer!” unless that entertainet spouts political views you like and then there’s no complaints. Grow the fuck up.
Because the ships aren’t already going back anyway? It would be a bigger waste to have them go back empty.
George Lucas was original? lolwut? He’s long admitted that Star Wars was highly derivative.
That should be the 4th Earl of Chesterfield.
Yeah, William Shakespeare, a prominent user of the singular they in his writing, was well-known for his political correctness. *yawn*
Yes, I noticed you did that.
Worst comeback ever.
No, I'm sorry,
Then why does your English not look like this:
Forrrihht anan se time comm
att ure Drihhtin wollde
ben borenn i iss middellærd
forr all mannkinne nede
he chæs himm sone kinnessmenn
all swillke summ he wollde
and whær he wollde borenn ben
he chæs all att hiss wille.
Oh right, that's because English evolves and changes and is defined by common usage.
I haven't been alive that long, but I remember when "they" became the "socially correct" replacement for "he" in the late 70's or early 80's. That's hardly 500+ years. (Doest thee protest, thy anger is great!) Now even that abuse is not enough, we're getting "zee" and "zey" thrown into the mix. Apparently "they" doesn't mean what you think, since "they" just wasn't unsexist enough.
I didn't realize that writers like Early of Chesterfield, John Ruskin and William Shakespeare were only from the 1970s and 80s. Oh did you not know that they used the singular they centuries ago?
They has a singular meaning as well. Anyone who isn't just a fake Grammar Nazi would know this. It has been used a such since the Middle English period. Go back under your bridge, troll.
There is no "suddenly" about it.
Exactly. It's been around in common usage longer than Modern English has even existed. Usages can be found dating back to the late 1400s during the period of Middle English.
Shifting the goalposts now. Also, the English language is defined by common usage and the singular they has been in common usage for 500+ years.