Interesting. I guess as long as it doesn’t have any false positives this seems like an ok idea.
Still, it would be definitely better if it could use tsc. They mention this… but don’t really say if the Go version of tsc will allow it. IMO the slowness of tsc is largely overblown.
FreeCAD 1.0 is actually pretty good now. Definitely usable if you’re only doing basic things.
SolveSpace is also nice but it has some deal-breaker limitations like not supporting chamfers/bevels.
That means the installation is irrelevant to the use of Windows. The vast majority of people who use Linux installed it themselves.
Haha this is also the classic Linux experience. Any complaints about stuff not working properly get met with “It works for me” and “You’re doing it wrong”. Oh and don’t forget “did you submit a bug report?” and “if you don’t like it, fork it!”.
Ha yeah ASCII Nethack.
@
Don’t be an idiot.
That’s definitely better, but still not as good as Windows. If you click on an area that isn’t a drag source it should be raised on button down. I presume it doesn’t do that?
So, Windows has fully optimal behaviour here:
If you click on an area of the window that cannot be dragged from, it raises it on mouse-down.
If you click on an area of the window that can be dragged on, it doesn’t raise if you start a drag, otherwise it raises it on mouse-up.
That’s the desired behaviour. I agree people didn’t really explain that clearly.
I haven’t looked into it for over 20 years but as I recall it is impossible to do this with X11. I have no idea if Wayland added some kind of support for this, but I would be quite surprised given how long it took them to do screenshots.
Part of the difficulty is that you need to somehow query an app on mouse-down if it might start a drag. I have no idea how Windows does that… but… they solved it decades ago.
I wonder if they’ll ever fix this 24 year old bug…
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36065
(Note they closed it but it doesn’t sound like they actually did fix it.)
Impressive. I would imagine it is very difficult to get native performance without ISA extensions like Apple had to do for TSO and other awkward x86isms.
I would guess someone will make a RISC-V extension for that stuff eventually, though I haven’t seen anyone propose one yet.
The linked patch actually explains it really well.
If you want two processes to communicate (IPC) normally, you would set up some shared memory, so that in each process’s virtual memory some pages are shared between them both, so when process A writes to that memory it is visible to process B and vice versa. There are other ways to do IPC but this is the fastest since it doesn’t involve any syscalls (context switch to the kernel which is slow).
However it still requires each process to copy its private data into and out of the shared memory. Also it still requires a context switch from process A to process B.
A common use of IPC is for RPC (Remote Procedure Calls). Basically you want to run a function in the other process. This solution does that but differently and faster.
First, both processes share the same virtual memory. This is normally a recipe for disaster since it completely destroys the normal process memory sandboxing (a memory error in one process can now crash the other one!). However they use a new Intel MPK hardware feature that allows splitting the pages into one of 16 groups (“keys”), and you can control read/write access to each group independently.
Next when process A wants to call a function in process B, the RPAL code does a lightweight context switch in user space. I guess this just means changing the MPK key, and normal saving of registers for the function call. I’m not sure what else you’d need to change. It’s a little unclear about how you pass heap data from process A to process B. I guess both processes just have read access to the entire address space? That doesn’t really change the security model on Unix since any process can already debug any other process with no extra permissions.
It sounds very similar to running two processes as if they were threads in the same process. Why not just use threads? Probably a better option if you can, but I guess if you are e.g. running processes written in different languages that might be tricky?
Interesting. From the sounds of it Unity added their own API for it though.
It definitely is.
Games might be an area where it isn’t too bad since you can disable the GC while doing all your physics and graphics, and then just after you’ve dispatched a frame trigger a GC with a hard time limit.
I don’t know if Unity works like that but it should.
Nah AI can be extremely useful for learning technologies. You just need to be careful to verify they aren’t bullshitting you.
For example find an explanation of PPM compression that is concrete and simple. As far as I can tell it doesn’t exist.
But I could ask ChatGPT and it told me how it works (probably) in just a few seconds. I haven’t verified yet (at a BBQ) whether it is the correct algorithm but it’s certainly a plausible one that would work.
It told me that you use a trie (typically) of symbol prefixes to record the probability of the following symbols, so for example you know that for the prefix “Th” the probability of “e” is 90%. Then you encode the symbol with arithmetic coding using the modelled probabilities. Apparently the typical max context length is 4-6.
That would have taken me hours to find by reading code and ancient papers but I can verify it a lot quicker.
Your example doesn’t quite fit the crime. A better example would be. “I ran and catch upped to him.” Or “These clothes are available to be try onned.”
To be fair I once asked an Italian what was the hardest part of English and they said compound verbs, so maybe they’re just not native English.
That’s my charitable explanation anyway. If not I’m joining the hunt!
No Pyright is just a type checker. The IDE features are part of Pylance which is closed source.
Only if you are desperate or masochistic.
I think Fusion 360 defaults to direct modelling which may be easier for beginners. FreeCAD uses parametric modelling which is more powerful and easier to use, but probably a bit confusing if you aren’t expecting it.
Also Fusion360 is commercial software that has had lots and lots of UX effort put into it. FreeCAD hasn’t. Until FreeCAD 1.0 I would say it had pretty awful UX, even for someone already familiar with parametric CAD.
With FreeCAD 1.0 it’s quite good and usable for people with experience in parametric CAD (mostly) but it definitely doesn’t hold your hand and I wouldn’t expect a beginner to be able to design a part easily first time.