Re: D only has Advantages
On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 04:19:22 UTC, Tony wrote: On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 02:17:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 02:02:52 UTC, Tony wrote: Have their been other languages - besides D - that compiled to object code and used a garbage collector? You can use a GC with C++ and you can compile Java to native code ahead of time. The distinctions aren't really that sharp, it just depends on how you use it. After I posted I wanted to edit it to add "disregarding JIT in conjunction with a VM like JVM or .NET". Have there been any C++ compilers that used a garbage collector? What I was getting at was, if someone says "I've got a systems level project I want to play around with, however GC is not a deal breaker for me. ", it seems like they are making an implied reference to D as I assume "systems level" means "compile to object code and link with linker to executable". Search this forum or HN for Paulo and Oberon, you'll find plenty of posts like this, where he lists all of them: :) https://forum.dlang.org/post/mioycakymbdpzryme...@forum.dlang.org
Re: D only has Advantages
On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 02:17:26 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote: On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 02:02:52 UTC, Tony wrote: Have their been other languages - besides D - that compiled to object code and used a garbage collector? You can use a GC with C++ and you can compile Java to native code ahead of time. The distinctions aren't really that sharp, it just depends on how you use it. After I posted I wanted to edit it to add "disregarding JIT in conjunction with a VM like JVM or .NET". Have there been any C++ compilers that used a garbage collector? What I was getting at was, if someone says "I've got a systems level project I want to play around with, however GC is not a deal breaker for me. ", it seems like they are making an implied reference to D as I assume "systems level" means "compile to object code and link with linker to executable".
Re: D only has Advantages
On Friday, 15 June 2018 at 02:02:52 UTC, Tony wrote: Have their been other languages - besides D - that compiled to object code and used a garbage collector? You can use a GC with C++ and you can compile Java to native code ahead of time. The distinctions aren't really that sharp, it just depends on how you use it.
Re: D only has Advantages
"I've got a systems level project I want to play around with, however GC is not a deal breaker for me. " https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17302719 Oberon-2 has had some versions that used a garbage collector. Have their been other languages - besides D - that compiled to object code and used a garbage collector?
[OT]: companies
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 20:59:06 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Thursday, June 14, 2018 16:04:32 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: On 06/14/2018 05:01 AM, AnotherTorUser wrote: > If all such people stopped working for such companies, what > do you think the economic impact would be? What do you think is the social impact if they don't? And don't even try to pretend the companies can't trivially solve the "economic" issues for themselves in an instant by knocking off the behaviour that causes loss of talent. But that would imply that they have a frontal lobe. :) In all seriousness, it is surprising how frequently companies seem to be incapable of making decisions that would fix a lot of their problems, and they seem to be incredibly prone to thinking about things in a shortsighted manner. I'm reminded of an article by Joel Spoelskey where he talks about how one of the key things that a source control software solution can do to make it more likely for folks to be willing to try it is to make it easy to get your source code and history back out again and into another source control system. However, companies typically freak out at the idea of making it easy to switch from their product to another product. They're quite willing to make it easy to switch _to_ their product so that they can start making money off of you, but the idea that making it low cost to leave could actually improve the odds of someone trying their product - and thus increase their profits - seems to be beyond them. Another case which is closer to the exact topic at hand is that many companies seem to forget how much it costs to hire someone when they consider what they should do to make it so that their employees are willing - or even eager - to stay. Spending more money on current employees (be that on salary or something else to make the workplace desirable) or avoiding practices that tick employees off so that they leave can often save money in the long run, but companies frequently ignore that fact. They're usually more interested in saving on the bottom line right now than making decisions that save money over time. So, while I completely agree that companies can technically make decisions that solve some of their problems with things like retaining talent, it seems like it's frequently the case that they're simply incapable of doing it in practice - though YMMV; some companies are better about it than others. This was an interesting read on that topic, which I've linked on this forum before, where an engineer points out that companies would be better off not chasing "rockstars" with hot keywords on their resumes but improving their training, processes, and culture so that even average programmers can be productive, including mentioning using source control and the Joel test that you just referenced: https://danluu.com/programmer-moneyball/ Of course, the reason companies mostly don't do it is they're prone to the same cognitive failings as anybody else: it's easier to chase a quick fix than doing the hard work of putting in a system like this.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 20:35:23 UTC, baz wrote: I asked on IRC yesterday and actually tHose memcpy are not the memcpy we use to copy wide chunks, apparently it's rather for an internal druntime thing, i.e cpy type to type so likely always aligned. Correct! D already has features like `a[] = b[]` so there is no reason to call `memcpy` directly; that is a job for the druntime. `memcpyD` is intended to be an internal druntime utility. However, we should still be good D citizens when we write our low level druntime code, so the interface will be `memcpy(T)(T a, T b)` and `memcpy(T)(T[] a, T[] b)` instead of `memcpy(void* a, void* b, size_t size)`. This will ensure the code, at compile-time, adheres to D's guarantees such as `@safe`, `nothrow`, and `pure`. And, given that it won't require `TypeInfo` it will be usable in -betterC. Although rare, I believe it is still possible to have misaligned memory in D. My understanding is that misaligned copies usually involve copying smaller chunks of the memory until they are aligned, and then copying the aligned memory in larger chunks. I suspect that will work well with the D implementation. TL;DR, Unaligned memory will be handled after optimized aligned memory copies are implemented. Mike
Re: D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 20:04:06 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/14/2018 12:30 PM, Jordan Wilson wrote: I remember reading your answer on how you generate income. You said you bought high and sold low. I suffered several losses before I realised your particular sense of humor. My superpower is control over the stock market. Immediately after I buy a stock, the stock tanks. Immediately after I sell, it zooms upwards. It's proof that I'm living in a simulation! IF YOU'RE READING THIS, YOU'VE BEEN IN A SIMULATION FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW. WE'RE TRYING A NEW TECHNIQUE. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS MESSAGE WILL END UP IN YOUR DREAM, BUT WE HOPE WE'RE GETTING THROUGH.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, June 14, 2018 16:04:32 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d- announce wrote: > On 06/14/2018 05:01 AM, AnotherTorUser wrote: > > If all such people stopped working for such companies, what do you think > > the economic impact would be? > > What do you think is the social impact if they don't? And don't even try > to pretend the companies can't trivially solve the "economic" issues for > themselves in an instant by knocking off the behaviour that causes loss > of talent. But that would imply that they have a frontal lobe. :) In all seriousness, it is surprising how frequently companies seem to be incapable of making decisions that would fix a lot of their problems, and they seem to be incredibly prone to thinking about things in a shortsighted manner. I'm reminded of an article by Joel Spoelskey where he talks about how one of the key things that a source control software solution can do to make it more likely for folks to be willing to try it is to make it easy to get your source code and history back out again and into another source control system. However, companies typically freak out at the idea of making it easy to switch from their product to another product. They're quite willing to make it easy to switch _to_ their product so that they can start making money off of you, but the idea that making it low cost to leave could actually improve the odds of someone trying their product - and thus increase their profits - seems to be beyond them. Another case which is closer to the exact topic at hand is that many companies seem to forget how much it costs to hire someone when they consider what they should do to make it so that their employees are willing - or even eager - to stay. Spending more money on current employees (be that on salary or something else to make the workplace desirable) or avoiding practices that tick employees off so that they leave can often save money in the long run, but companies frequently ignore that fact. They're usually more interested in saving on the bottom line right now than making decisions that save money over time. So, while I completely agree that companies can technically make decisions that solve some of their problems with things like retaining talent, it seems like it's frequently the case that they're simply incapable of doing it in practice - though YMMV; some companies are better about it than others. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 17:27:27 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote: On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 06:46:43 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote: I had a little fun today kicking the crap out of C's memcpy with a D implementation. https://github.com/JinShil/memcpyD Request for help: I don't have a Linux system running on real hardware at this time, nor do I have a wide range of platforms and machines to test with. If you'd like to help me with this potentially foolish endeavor, please run the program on your hardware and send me the results. Feedback, advise, and pull requests to improve the implementation are most welcome. Just a little remark. Alignment has also an extremely heavy impact on the performance of memcpy(). Does your test include it? I asked on IRC yesterday and actually tHose memcpy are not the memcpy we use to copy wide chunks, apparently it's rather for an internal druntime thing, i.e cpy type to type so likely always aligned.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On 06/14/2018 05:01 AM, AnotherTorUser wrote: sorry. but what world do you live in? Note this part of what I said: >> If I worked in such an organization that tracked its employees >> activities *outside the workplace* That part is KEY, but it sounds like you an errExit have chosen to ignore that part. If all such people stopped working for such companies, what do you think the economic impact would be? What do you think is the social impact if they don't? And don't even try to pretend the companies can't trivially solve the "economic" issues for themselves in an instant by knocking off the behaviour that causes loss of talent.
Re: D only has Advantages
On 6/14/2018 12:30 PM, Jordan Wilson wrote: I remember reading your answer on how you generate income. You said you bought high and sold low. I suffered several losses before I realised your particular sense of humor. My superpower is control over the stock market. Immediately after I buy a stock, the stock tanks. Immediately after I sell, it zooms upwards. It's proof that I'm living in a simulation!
Re: D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 11:39:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/14/2018 4:19 AM, jmh530 wrote: I found myself getting in trouble when I was texting and being sarcastic. I always add the little winky face now. People don't get mad anymore, but instead just say I'm not funny. Good trade-off. My sense of humor tends to the droll side, and people who don't know me well often miss it, and sometimes take offense. A friend of mine told me that he initially thought I was a humorless stuffed shirt, until he eventually realized I was constantly joking :-) I remember reading your answer on how you generate income. You said you bought high and sold low. I suffered several losses before I realised your particular sense of humor.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 06:46:43 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote: I had a little fun today kicking the crap out of C's memcpy with a D implementation. https://github.com/JinShil/memcpyD Request for help: I don't have a Linux system running on real hardware at this time, nor do I have a wide range of platforms and machines to test with. If you'd like to help me with this potentially foolish endeavor, please run the program on your hardware and send me the results. Feedback, advise, and pull requests to improve the implementation are most welcome. Just a little remark. Alignment has also an extremely heavy impact on the performance of memcpy(). Does your test include it?
DCD 0.9.9 & D-Scanner 0.5.7 & dparse 0.8.7 available
Mostly Released due to the transition for "body" but contains more bug fixes or enhancements. In dparse `tok!"body"` is not a thing anymore and people will have to test for the `.text` property. See: https://github.com/dlang-community/libdparse/releases/tag/v0.8.7 https://github.com/dlang-community/DCD/releases/tag/v0.9.9 https://github.com/dlang-community/D-Scanner For the changelogs and the binaries. Note that dfmt should follow, maybe tomorrow.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 13:42:14 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: Well, for me, it wasn't attacks. There have been quite a few people in this community who were rude, insulting, and IMO, that is not worth moderation. In fact some of them have even came around and become quite good D contributors. Those problems usually work themselves out because we have a great community which does not give trolls the attention they desire. That seems to be the opinion of most. The problem I have is that this forum is the main way to communicate about the language, and thus it is how others form their opinion of the language.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 07:54:20 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 14:34:28 Uknown via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: Looks very promising. One question though, why not use std.datetime.stopwatch.benchmark? I think it has some protection against optimizing compilers (I may be wrong though). Also, LDC has attributes to control optimizations on a per function basis.see : https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC-specific_language_changes Unfortunately, std.datetime.stopwatch.benchmark does not yet have such protections. It has been discussed, but there were issues with it that still need to be sorted out. In any case, what he has implemented is pretty much what's in Phobos except for the fact that he set up his to take arguments, whereas Phobos' solution just takes the function(s) to call, so anything that it does has to be self-contained. - Jonathan M Davis huh. I saw the PR and assumed it was accepted. Anyway, for DMD putting `asm` blocks seems to still disable optimizations, and for LDC, the pragma is perfect. GDC is the only unknown.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On 6/14/18 9:31 AM, rikki cattermole wrote: On 15/06/2018 1:22 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: It's really the impersonation that is the problem, not the anonymity. If you just would stick to one persona, and especially not impersonate people who actually post on this forum, you would not have to use Tor at all, and the forum moderators wouldn't have to worry about active moderation. Not quite. It was the attacking of the D community at large which convinced those with the power to actively ban, to ban "him". Well, for me, it wasn't attacks. There have been quite a few people in this community who were rude, insulting, and IMO, that is not worth moderation. In fact some of them have even came around and become quite good D contributors. Those problems usually work themselves out because we have a great community which does not give trolls the attention they desire. But when you start impersonating people, especially ones that post to this forum, you have crossed the line and are literally putting words into other's mouths. We've seen this before, and generally they go away, but this guy does not want to. Now he's claiming "discrimination" ;) Once they are gone, we can deactivate the extra protections that have been put in place, because until this person came along, we were quite happy moderating ourselves. It lasted nearly 20 years that peace... I agree, this will be a blip in our forum experience, and next month we'll barely remember him. -Steve
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On 15/06/2018 1:22 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote: It's really the impersonation that is the problem, not the anonymity. If you just would stick to one persona, and especially not impersonate people who actually post on this forum, you would not have to use Tor at all, and the forum moderators wouldn't have to worry about active moderation. Not quite. It was the attacking of the D community at large which convinced those with the power to actively ban, to ban "him". We have in essence decided that this person will never be willing to have positive experiences within our community and have out right decided that we do not want them here under any circumstance. A lot of work has gone into getting rid of "him". As far as I am concerned the original IP address that was used from Australia was in fact a proxy and had the single desire for this person, was to attack us. Once they are gone, we can deactivate the extra protections that have been put in place, because until this person came along, we were quite happy moderating ourselves. It lasted nearly 20 years that peace...
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On 6/13/18 10:32 PM, errExit wrote: On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 17:04:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote: I am part of the D community. I haven't discriminated against anyone. I don't know what a Tor user is. I've just searched: So Tor is an old idea of mine, implemented. :o) Ali Tor is our last line of defence against an Orson Wells future, where everyones actions are scrutinized by big brother, so that big brother can use that knowledge to put fear into, control and manipulate, those that don't conform. Sorry KingJoffrey/psychoticRabbit/etc, you literally only started using Tor when your steady IP was banned. This argument kind of falls down when your past behavior is examined. It's really the impersonation that is the problem, not the anonymity. If you just would stick to one persona, and especially not impersonate people who actually post on this forum, you would not have to use Tor at all, and the forum moderators wouldn't have to worry about active moderation. -Steve
D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 05:31:18 UTC, Bugsy wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 04:11:37 UTC, Anton Fediushin wrote: they have bugs and features D only has features that's because in D, bugs are actually features. The advantages of D are numerous. It a language design to make a newbie a pro and to give a pro an edge. It simplify Complex things and make them very simple. D is a joy to work with and bugs are not features
Re: D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 10:18:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: On 6/14/2018 2:53 AM, Unsafe wrote: "D only has advantages" ?? What is the point of such a post? Read the parent post. This was in fact the problem: it was not obvious that there is a parent post.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 06:46:43 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote: I had a little fun today kicking the crap out of C's memcpy with a D implementation. https://github.com/JinShil/memcpyD Request for help: I don't have a Linux system running on real hardware at this time, nor do I have a wide range of platforms and machines to test with. If you'd like to help me with this potentially foolish endeavor, please run the program on your hardware and send me the results. Feedback, advise, and pull requests to improve the implementation are most welcome. Mike Hello Mike, These are my results: Ubuntu 16.04.4 amd64 Linux 4.16.0-ck1+ Intel Xeon E5-2620 0 @ 2.00GHz - 12 cores 32 GB RAM dmd -O -release memcpyd.d # dmd 2.080.0 size memcpyC memcpyD 1 125349 47658 2 155014 50492 4 173099 52669 8 228236 52676 16 107897 32621 32 128039 32604 64 163644 37658 128 223840 50420 256 338769 90300 512 584772 171038 1024 878093 995813 2048 1346958 1254141 4096 2439378 2101284 8192 5631202 3554307 16384 9873090 6496635 32768 22489302 21328288 65536 50522961 45748356 size memcpyC memcpyD 1 123241 27631 1 130758 28165 1 123247 32748 2 142964 27587 2 140914 28103 4 168084 32616 4 171166 27590 8 228274 27604 8 233249 27605 4 168624 27597 8 238049 29435 16 103956 52730 ldc2 -O3 -release memcpyd.d # ldc2 1.10.0-beta1 (I think these are strange results) size memcpyC memcpyD 1 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 16 559 0 32 1003 0 64 0 0 128 0 0 256 0 0 512 0 0 1024 460182 1519048 2048 739148 1973641 4096 1533047 3168472 8192 2913463 5560106 16384 6385370 10353178 32768 20889322 21487968 65536 44920382 48339716 size memcpyC memcpyD 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 4 0 0 8 0 0 16 0 0
Re: D only has Advantages
On 6/14/2018 4:19 AM, jmh530 wrote: I found myself getting in trouble when I was texting and being sarcastic. I always add the little winky face now. People don't get mad anymore, but instead just say I'm not funny. Good trade-off. My sense of humor tends to the droll side, and people who don't know me well often miss it, and sometimes take offense. A friend of mine told me that he initially thought I was a humorless stuffed shirt, until he eventually realized I was constantly joking :-)
Re: D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 11:19:37 UTC, jmh530 wrote: On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 10:18:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Evidently my brand of humor got lost in translation. I grovel and beg for forgiveness, and will appropriately flagellate myself with a wet noodle. I found myself getting in trouble when I was texting and being sarcastic. I always add the little winky face now. People don't get mad anymore, but instead just say I'm not funny. Good trade-off. I think everybody should just calm down and don't think too much about such things. I honestly don't know how a little joking post can bring up DPRK and propaganda. Also, did you notice that DPRK starts with D? ;) And your jokes aren't funny. ;) Just like mine. ;)
Re: D only has Advantages
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 10:18:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: Evidently my brand of humor got lost in translation. I grovel and beg for forgiveness, and will appropriately flagellate myself with a wet noodle. I found myself getting in trouble when I was texting and being sarcastic. I always add the little winky face now. People don't get mad anymore, but instead just say I'm not funny. Good trade-off.
Re: D only has Advantages
On 6/14/2018 2:53 AM, Unsafe wrote: "D only has advantages" ?? What is the point of such a post? Read the parent post. To me, it just comes across as being DPRK like propaganda. Evidently my brand of humor got lost in translation. I grovel and beg for forgiveness, and will appropriately flagellate myself with a wet noodle.
Re: D only has Advantages
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 22:38:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17306761 "D only has advantages" ?? What is the point of such a post? To me, it just comes across as being DPRK like propaganda. Perhaps it should mention 'sunrises'...the more the merry'r.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 07:19:31 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: I'm with you on a lot of that, however, this part troubles me: "This becomes problematic for those of us who work in 'certain organisations', that insist on tracking it's employees online activities (even outside of the workplace)." If I worked in such an organization that tracked its employees activities *outside the workplace*, I'd LEAVE it ASAP, and I'd strongly suggest anyone else do the same. I mean what insane workplace is that, the 1920's mob? Apple? Honestly, if you believe strongly enough in Tor to use it, why in the world would you willfully aid and abed an organization that does that sort of thing? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's EXTREMELY self-contradictory and completely erodes your entire stance. If you're going to preach for personal freedom and privacy, at least have the basic integrity to LIVE the basic ideals you're preaching even when doing so ISN'T so trivial as installing a mere web browser. Sadly, it's increasingly 'standard practice' in HR to do just that. Monitor what employees, and potential employees have done or made available on the internet. I don't support that approach, which is exactly why I use Tor. Now, their attempts are moot, and therefore I am in no way supporting those actions. And so, your comments about 'self-contradictory' are moot also. In addition, HR data is increasingly becoming a valuable target for attack, due to the 'profiles' they keep on people. So now the situation gets even worse. Cause not only does HR have this info, so will others... eventually. The only real world option, is to prevent them from gathering data on you in the first place. btw. Some people in my team (those that use D), might have contributed to this post, but now, likely will not.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 07:19:31 UTC, Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) wrote: I'm with you on a lot of that, however, this part troubles me: "This becomes problematic for those of us who work in 'certain organisations', that insist on tracking it's employees online activities (even outside of the workplace)." If I worked in such an organization that tracked its employees activities *outside the workplace*, I'd LEAVE it ASAP, and I'd strongly suggest anyone else do the same. I mean what insane workplace is that, the 1920's mob? Apple? Honestly, if you believe strongly enough in Tor to use it, why in the world would you willfully aid and abed an organization that does that sort of thing? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's EXTREMELY self-contradictory and completely erodes your entire stance. If you're going to preach for personal freedom and privacy, at least have the basic integrity to LIVE the basic ideals you're preaching even when doing so ISN'T so trivial as installing a mere web browser. sorry. but what world do you live in? If all such people stopped working for such companies, what do you think the economic impact would be? Tor prevents tracking, and therefore it is not contradictory to work for such companies - because they can't track you (or at least, it become much more difficult to do so).
Re: D only has Advantages
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 22:38:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17306761 I think that if you want to advertise a single comment on Reddit or similar sites, the general forum would be more appopriate place for that. But that's just my opinion.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 07:45:15 UTC, Joakim wrote: Tor is merely one tool used to route around those building centralized systems on top of the internet. The real solution is that as more and more decentralized tech does well, like git or cryptocurrencies, to get rid of these obsolete centralized systems altogether. The problem with the D Foundation's 'new approach' is, that there is simply no visibility as to what is being moderated, how long it takes, whom does it, and for what the filtering criteria is. We're just being told that it is too avoid 'spammers'?? If that is not a tool for abuse, then I don't know what is.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 14:34:28 Uknown via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > Looks very promising. One question though, why not use > std.datetime.stopwatch.benchmark? I think it has some protection > against optimizing compilers (I may be wrong though). Also, LDC > has attributes to control optimizations on a per function > basis.see : https://wiki.dlang.org/LDC-specific_language_changes Unfortunately, std.datetime.stopwatch.benchmark does not yet have such protections. It has been discussed, but there were issues with it that still need to be sorted out. In any case, what he has implemented is pretty much what's in Phobos except for the fact that he set up his to take arguments, whereas Phobos' solution just takes the function(s) to call, so anything that it does has to be self-contained. - Jonathan M Davis
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 02:32:51 UTC, errExit wrote:
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 17:04:11 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
I am part of the D community. I haven't discriminated against
anyone. I don't know what a Tor user is.
I've just searched: So Tor is an old idea of mine,
implemented. :o)
Ali
Tor is our last line of defence against an Orson Wells future,
where everyones actions are scrutinized by big brother, so that
big brother can use that knowledge to put fear into, control
and manipulate, those that don't conform.
assert("bad tor user" != "all tor users are bad");
(actually there are more bad non-tor users)
Unfortunately, it's becoming increasingly, the norm, to
discriminate against tor users (no doubt those doing that
discrimination are those that are happy to conform, of which
there will be many, sadly).
https://people.torproject.org/~lunar/20160331-CloudFlare_Fact_Sheet.pdf
Tor is merely one tool used to route around those building
centralized systems on top of the internet. The real solution is
that as more and more decentralized tech does well, like git or
cryptocurrencies, to get rid of these obsolete centralized
systems altogether.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On 06/14/2018 02:34 AM, errExit wrote: The D Foundation now subjects all users having an ip originating from a tor exit node, to having their posts moderated (but by whom, when, how, criteria ?? etc). Literally millions of people could, and probably would, be using that exit node. So that is plain discrimination. It's not spammer management. Forcing people to identify themselves, is also not about spammer management either. The D Foundation IS now discimantory against those that want that believe that freedom and privacy is some to be protected. This becomes problematic for those of us who work in 'certain organisations', that insist on tracking it's employees online activities (even outside of the workplace). It's a shame the D Foundation has finally succumed to the big brother mentality - under the guise of protecting you from spam. https://blog.torproject.org/dont-let-facebook-or-any-tracker-follow-you-web I'm with you on a lot of that, however, this part troubles me: "This becomes problematic for those of us who work in 'certain organisations', that insist on tracking it's employees online activities (even outside of the workplace)." If I worked in such an organization that tracked its employees activities *outside the workplace*, I'd LEAVE it ASAP, and I'd strongly suggest anyone else do the same. I mean what insane workplace is that, the 1920's mob? Apple? Honestly, if you believe strongly enough in Tor to use it, why in the world would you willfully aid and abed an organization that does that sort of thing? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's EXTREMELY self-contradictory and completely erodes your entire stance. If you're going to preach for personal freedom and privacy, at least have the basic integrity to LIVE the basic ideals you're preaching even when doing so ISN'T so trivial as installing a mere web browser.
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Thursday, 14 June 2018 at 03:59:47 UTC, Cym13 wrote: Don't mistake spammer management with discrimination. I share your frustration that TOR isn't more usable than it is today with CloudFlare etc, but coming with political reasons holds no water if the reason why it was blacklisted wasn't political in the first place. It's not false, it just won't work. Hopefully once that particular user gets discouraged or we find a way to actually avoid user impersonification, then things will be able to come back to normal. The D Foundation now subjects all users having an ip originating from a tor exit node, to having their posts moderated (but by whom, when, how, criteria ?? etc). Literally millions of people could, and probably would, be using that exit node. So that is plain discrimination. It's not spammer management. Forcing people to identify themselves, is also not about spammer management either. The D Foundation IS now discimantory against those that want that believe that freedom and privacy is some to be protected. This becomes problematic for those of us who work in 'certain organisations', that insist on tracking it's employees online activities (even outside of the workplace). It's a shame the D Foundation has finally succumed to the big brother mentality - under the guise of protecting you from spam. https://blog.torproject.org/dont-let-facebook-or-any-tracker-follow-you-web
Re: Encouraging preliminary results implementing memcpy in D
On Wednesday, 13 June 2018 at 06:46:43 UTC, Mike Franklin wrote: I had a little fun today kicking the crap out of C's memcpy with a D implementation. https://github.com/JinShil/memcpyD Request for help: I don't have a Linux system running on real hardware at this time, nor do I have a wide range of platforms and machines to test with. If you'd like to help me with this potentially foolish endeavor, please run the program on your hardware and send me the results. Feedback, advise, and pull requests to improve the implementation are most welcome. Mike On 8 core, 16 GB Intel Skull Candy box running Ubuntu 18.04 64 bit. https://gist.githubusercontent.com/carun/f7c2c200b1be20d0a9489296d6601332/raw/db01bb8bc909c6048288fccc500bd15e5ee491b2/memcpyd-output.log Hope this helps.
