Yes and no: while it's very impresive, I wonder if the Chinese didn't invent a better system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zt1V9UWhuKk

Such a weird comment, SpaceX has been landing boosters just like that on drone ships since 2016.

The Long March 10B is comparable to Falcon 9, not Starship.

Long March 10B booster weight: 740 ton at liftoff (dry weight unknown)

Starship booster weight: 5,000 tons at liftoff (dry weight ~200 tons)

You're not comparing apples-to-apples here.

I like that trick the Chinese rocket can do where it careens into a village during launch and explodes, then the government covers it up.

Which contradicts the claim 'safer than Rust' given that in Rust it either panic or wrap.

Were? I haven't seen any serious move towards SeL4 and userspace written in a memory safe language..

The only serious move is kernels adoption of Rust, but for example in Linux this is restricted to 'non core' components.

And while Rust is obviously safer than C, it isn't really 'security focused' for example it still have supply chain attacks, which would be 'impossible' if it used capabilities..

> CISC instructions take up less space than the equivalent RISC instructions

In theory CISC instructions take less space than the equivalent RISC instructions, but x86 has lots of legacy features which makes it far less efficient than a CISC could be.

I hate Oscar Niemeyer (most of people from le Havre despise its "vulcano" especially when you compare it with the nice theater which was there before the war) but sometimes it's not his fault: in Paris they used a design made for Brazil in a university: so it always very cold and drafty, but that's on purpose but it's just not adaptated for Paris's climate (except when there is a heatwave of course).

Zig disagree with you: they even made unsigned OV undefined (in unchecked mode)

I guess yet another reason not to bother with Zig.

Or that reasonable people may disagree on when to make signed/unsigned overflow undefined: Zig didn't only make it an UB on unchecked build they also trigger an "abort on overflow" in checked build.

Make it implementation defined, if you must. But undefined is pretty sad.

> The same goes for its "Code Density" argument: nope, code density is very important.

Sure, but ARM's thumb has shown that you can get a RISC which has the same code density as current CISCs.

Of course, it's because current CISCs are bad due to backward compatibility but..

> Unfortunately that's somewhat expected - regardless of implementation

Yes, that's expected and no not "regardless of implementation": the GC implementation CAN be improved.

See this discussion on reddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1wf2fei/40ms_g...

Copy/pasted here: >>

I remember a research paper about swap and GC, where the GC cooperated with the OS to avoid this kind of issue. AFAIK it went nowhere, too bad.

[–]andreiross[S] 15 points il y a 21 jours

Are you talking about this one? https://cse.buffalo.edu/\~mhertz/bc-pldi-2005.pdf. If so, yes. Too bad. I don't know the repercusions this paper had in the past, though, in the sense of pros and cons of the bookmark collector. Don't know if anyone tried to actually implement it or design it at some point.

[–]renozyx 9 points il y a 21 jours

Yes, congratulations for finding it. And I don't know either,. Except that they did implement it on Linux (of course) https://plasma.cs.umass.edu/emery/cooperative-memory-managem...

<<

'data oriented' doesn't mean 'just use SoA' it means use data structures which correspond to your data access pattern. Which is quite difficult to know in complex applications and which can change..

> hands are wrung that communication will become rife with error and misunderstanding because unlike the telegraph, the newfangled telephone leaves no written record!

Well let's not forget that early phone communication quality was ahem not-very-good, so of course errors were an issue.