Pinned toot
Koakuma boosted

Hi #BSD and general #Unix people. I have a poll for you.

If CDBUG returned as a monthly online thing until we can return to a pre-COVID normalcy, would you attend? No need to be in the NY Capital District to attend!

Would you also be interested in giving a talk?

Please boost to your other BSD/Unix/#Linux friends.

#FreeBSD #OpenBSD #NetBSD #DragonFlyBSD

food 

In the absence of a proper steamer, I found that pan-frying shumai like gyoza/kuotie works well enough. Just be careful to not cook it for too long since the skin is much thinner and easier to char.

Koakuma boosted

I used to be quite annoyed that people use "weird incomprehensible notations" in books, articles, and other publications...

... but then I met legalese.

Koakuma boosted

Now I wonder if LLVM supports building a "lightly-optimizing compiler", i.e don't compile any optimization support other than what's needed for -Og, and alias all the other levels to it...

Completely unscientific compiler benchmark 

If the trend continues then LLVM 12 will likely take a bit over 4h to build itself :ablobnervous:

Show thread

Completely unscientific compiler benchmark 

LLVM 9 building LLVM 9: ~140 mins
LLVM 10 building LLVM 10: ~180 mins
LLVM 11 building LLVM 11: ~210 mins

"Stage 2" build on a 1165 MHz Sun T2 running Debian, building with -j48.
The components built are llvm, clang, clang-tools-extra, libcxx, libcxxabi, and lld (i.e just enough stuff to run Zig) :02lurk:

Koakuma boosted
we need a negevcopter so tux can achieve her final form
Koakuma boosted

Slightly more evil idea: let the default SIGOOM behavior be similar to a SIGTERM :02smug:

Show thread

Imagine if there's a Unix signal (let's call it SIGOOM) that's broadcasted by the kernel to all processes when it thinks that it will run out of physical memory soon, that by default will do nothing but can be catched and used by garbage-collected language runtimes and apps to trigger a full GC cycle :02lurk:

Koakuma boosted
Koakuma boosted
Koakuma boosted

currying is so elegant

a function that takes n arguments actually just takes one argument and returns a function that takes (n-1) arguments

the type of a ternary function is `a -> b -> c -> d` which is equivalent to `a -> (b -> c -> d)` and `a -> (b -> (c -> d))`. if you do `let f x y z = …` in ocaml that's equivalent to `let f = fun x -> fun y -> fun z -> …`

where function types are right associative, function application is left associative, so `f x y z` is just syntax sugar for `(f x) y z` = `((f x) y) z`

Koakuma boosted

One day I’d learn how to properly coordinate my attention and learn ${COMPLEX_TOPIC} in ${TRIVIAL_TIME_DURATION}

At least that's what I get from my understanding about how swappiness works. I might as well be completely wrong about this, tho :02lurk:

Show thread
Show more
uwu.social

A public Mastodon instance run by the same people who run owo (the file sharing website). Everyone is welcome... as long as you like to uwu. Please read the rules before registering an account on this instance.