Bongo Bill posted:

There are even fewer men in computers than women because men are larger.

Otto Skorzeny posted:

omeg posted:

C code:

ULONG SetVideoMode(int uWidth, int uHeight, int uBpp)

Why

omeg posted:

C code:

ULONG SetVideoMode(int uWidth, int uHeight, int uBpp)

Why

Hammerite posted:

just to check I understood, is the issue here that they put "u" at the start of the variable names but they're signed integers?

Sulla-Marius 88 posted:

Just so I haven't misinterpreted this, you're referring to the overwhelming number of socially-maladjusted sexist IT workers who for some reason can't keep their worthless opinions to themselves, right? Rather than criticising 'radical feminists' yourself..

Munkeymon posted:

Pretty sure he actually thinks that those of us who understand that what MRAs would call 'biotruths' are just artifacts of a misogynistic patriarchy are actually misandrists and possibly gender traitors (for those of us who are male).

Holy poo poo - misogyny is in Opera's built-in dictionary but not misandry. Radical Feminism at work!

Munkeymon posted:

Pretty sure he actually thinks that those of us who understand that what MRAs would call 'biotruths' are just artifacts of a misogynistic patriarchy are actually misandrists and possibly gender traitors (for those of us who are male).

Holy poo poo - misogyny is in Opera's built-in dictionary but not misandry. Radical Feminism at work!

tractor fanatic posted:

Is it really that difficult to prove correctness for programs?

quote:

Is it intractable to write a formally proven TLS library in C, or is mathematical correctness just not a high priority?

tractor fanatic posted:

Has anyone worked with formally verifying code? Is it really that difficult to prove correctness for programs? With all the Heartbleed craziness it seems weird that critical crypto code that millions of users and billions of dollars rely on could be so badly written. Is it intractable to write a formally proven TLS library in C, or is mathematical correctness just not a high priority?

pokeyman posted:

I write my C and C++ using trigraphs whenever possible. The rules aren't complicated, it's a simple step before preprocessing. I mean, just memorize this brief table:

shrughes posted:

I think optional semicolons are great because when you see somebody that thinks it makes sense to omit them or that semicolons are ugly, you'll be ready for superficialities in other opinions they hold, be it on encodings, design patterns, how to use version control systems, or radical feminism.

tractor fanatic posted:

Has anyone worked with formally verifying code? Is it really that difficult to prove correctness for programs? With all the Heartbleed craziness it seems weird that critical crypto code that millions of users and billions of dollars rely on could be so badly written. Is it intractable to write a formally proven TLS library in C, or is mathematical correctness just not a high priority?

Theo de Raadt posted:

quote:

No. OpenSSL has exploit mitigation countermeasures to make sure it's
exploitable.

What Ted is saying may sound like a joke...

So years ago we added exploit mitigations counter measures to libc
malloc and mmap, so that a variety of bugs can be exposed. Such
memory accesses will cause an immediate crash, or even a core dump,
then the bug can be analyed, and fixed forever.

Some other debugging toolkits get them too. To a large extent these
come with almost no performance cost.

But around that time OpenSSL adds a wrapper around malloc & free so
that the library will cache memory on it's own, and not free it to the
protective malloc.

You can find the comment in their sources ...

code:

#ifndef OPENSSL_NO_BUF_FREELISTS
 /* On some platforms, malloc() performance is bad enough that you can't just

OH, because SOME platforms have slow performance, it means even if you
build protective technology into malloc() and free(), it will be
ineffective. On ALL PLATFORMS, because that option is the default,
and Ted's tests show you can't turn it off because they haven't tested
without it in ages.

So then a bug shows up which leaks the content of memory mishandled by
that layer. If the memoory had been properly returned via free, it
would likely have been handed to munmap, and triggered a daemon crash
instead of leaking your keys.

OpenSSL is not developed by a responsible team.

Strong Sauce posted:

Who writes a throw on two lines? If some beginner is writing a throw on two lines, there's bigger problems than the ASI.

Strong Sauce posted:

I only bring up return for #1 because that's the only time I could see that rule ever applying. Where you decide to return an object and place the curly brace on the next line rather than next to the return. Because for all those other statements it makes no sense. Who writes a throw on two lines? If some beginner is writing a throw on two lines, there's bigger problems than the ASI. And when's the last time you actually had to apply an identifier to a break/continue? Then put it on a separate line?

Internet Janitor posted:

Meanwhile people unironically dismiss Ada as a viable systems programming option because

• static analysis can't catch EVERY error
  
• we already wrote tons of code in C and it's worked so far
  
• end is "harder to type" than }
  
• "I know what I'm doing"
  
• etc.
  

We're going to be stuck with C and lovely tools forever.

Internet Janitor posted:

Meanwhile people unironically dismiss Ada as a viable systems programming option because

• static analysis can't catch EVERY error
  
• we already wrote tons of code in C and it's worked so far
  
• end is "harder to type" than }
  
• "I know what I'm doing"
  
• etc.
  

We're going to be stuck with C and lovely tools forever.

Strong Sauce posted:

ASI is not some scary thing where the compiler will randomly inserts semicolons into your code. People just make it out to be bigger than it actually is.

I only bring up return for #1 because that's the only time I could see that rule ever applying. Where you decide to return an object and place the curly brace on the next line rather than next to the return. Because for all those other statements it makes no sense. Who writes a throw on two lines? If some beginner is writing a throw on two lines, there's bigger problems than the ASI. And when's the last time you actually had to apply an identifier to a break/continue? Then put it on a separate line?

If you are someone who writes a lot of javascript code you should be aware of these rules anyways and realize 0% chance you'll run into them.

necrotic posted:

I had to look into an issue with a deploy that went out a week ago that caused our GC time to increase ~400% (why no one caught it at release is another story). After digging around for a bit, I found a change to a view partial for country selection for targeting purposes. Originally the partial was a select list of countries, nothing crazy. The updated version added a hierarchy of Continents, Countries and Regions (States or Providences), which doesn't sound to crazy except it ends up generating ~4,000 lines every time the partial is rendered (which is on every form related to targeting, or almost all of our forms).

Zombywuf posted:

This sounds so much like it could have happened in a company I used to work for. Well apart from the bit about the aggressive caching making the site faster, where I worked aggressive caching tended to make it slower.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

This works as expected:

C# code:

var foo = customFooCollection[someIndex];
foo.SomeProperty = true; // SomeProperty is now true

GrumpyDoctor posted:

This works as expected:

C# code:

var foo = customFooCollection[someIndex];
foo.SomeProperty = true; // SomeProperty is now true

This does not:

C# code:

customFooCollection[someIndex].SomeProperty = false; // This setter is apparently actually a no-op

I can't decide whether it's worse that a setter just does nothing without informing you (the docs say nothing about this), or that it only does nothing sometimes.

Zombywuf posted:

Give it up, ADA is never going to be a thing outside the defence industry. Even there it's loosing ground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

tractor fanatic posted:

Is SomeProperty true for foo or for customFooCollection[someIndex]?

Ithaqua posted:

That seems weird. Are you sure that the behavior isn't like this (which is dumb beyond belief, don't get me wrong):

code:

private bool someProperty;
public bool SomeProperty  
{
    get { return someProperty; }
    set 
    {
        if (!value) return;
        someProperty=true;
    }
}

As far as I know, those two snippets you pasted should be functionally equivalent.

GrumpyDoctor posted:

Well I assumed that they'd be the same, but what I think is happening based on my tea-leaf readings of other parts of the documentation is that the collection's indexer is actually kicking out a clone, and in the original, the property is read-only, but doesn't throw or anything when you try write to it. Most of this documentation is only "documentation" in the sense that Sandcastle created it, but it's not giving me any more information than just using Intellisense.

Internet Janitor posted:

Meanwhile people unironically dismiss Ada as a viable systems programming option because
[list]

Munkeymon posted:

Ada isn't the language that either compiles and runs or, if you have any error, says 'No' without any explanation, right? I'd really like to clear that up if I have it wrong.

ninjeff posted:

Looks like you're using a struct (value type) as the type stored in customFooCollection. You'll need to get an item out, change it, and then put it back into the dictionary to get that working correctly.

feedmegin posted:

That's not a language thing, that's a 'my compiler is poo poo at reporting errors' thing. The language in no way mandates bad error reporting.

necrotic posted:

I... how? Is the cache stored on a floppy through a ethernet connection measured in baud?