BatmanAoD

joined 2 years ago
[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

All the others are not very butthole-ish, though.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There are definitely more experienced programmers using it. I can't find the post at the moment, but there was a recent-ish blog post citing a bunch of examples. [edit: found it: https://registerspill.thorstenball.com/p/they-all-use-it ]

Personally, I don't use AI much, but I do occasionally experiment with it (for instance, I recently gave Claude Sonnet the same live-coding interview I give candidates for my team; it...did worse than I expected, tbh). The experimenting is sufficient for me to recognize these phrases.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 8 points 3 months ago

It's not in C, if that's what you mean.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago

It's a "stream manipulator" function that not only generates a new line, it also flushes the stream.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

None of the features discussed are aesthetic only.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Nope. It links to an explanation of what that poster is:

This is the UNIX Magic Poster, originally created by Gary Overacre in the mid-1980s and published by UniTech Software.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Probably moreso for expressing the opinion so strongly without actually knowing any of the three languages.

Edit: I'm just guessing why a different comment got downvotes. Why am I getting downvotes?

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't the first edition use K&R style parameter lists and other no-longer-correct syntax?

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think generally C compilers prefer to keep the stack intact for debugging and such.

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Okay, yeah, I was indeed reading your original reply as a criticism of one of the people involved (presumably the security researcher), rather than as a criticism of the post title. Sorry for misunderstanding.

Apparently GCC does indeed do tail-call optimization at -O2: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html#index-foptimize-sibling-calls

But in that case, I'm not sure why the solution to the denial of service vulnerability isn't just "compile with -foptimize-sibling-calls."

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 2 points 3 months ago (5 children)

...what is your point? Some software (in a language that doesn't have tail-recursion optimization) used recursion to handle user-provided input, and indeed it broke. Someone wrote to explain that that's a potential vulnerability, the author agreed, and fixed it. Who here is misunderstanding how computers implement recursion?

[–] BatmanAoD@programming.dev 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

🤷 That wasn't my experience, and I used it as my primary dev environment for four years.

It doesn't go through a translation layer, though. WSL 2 has a whole separate kernel. You can even use GUI apps with Wayland.

view more: ‹ prev next ›