codehero

"Type systems are hard!" As hard as its safety is pushed on us, not even Rust is free from hand waving.

I looked at your site again and see you made changes. Stop working so fast, it's actually hurting your presentation pretty badly. I see "We make PCBs fast". I suppose it may mean something to the layman, but to me it just means you do what 4PCB does, except not in 24 hrs like they do. But never mind about determining turn time. When I click that I only see a single time listed (5 days). But if I look at the top of the screen I see another turn time of 7 days.

Just stop working on this site for 3-4 days and get your mission statement together. Maybe put some pictures of actual test fixtures if you test boards or any of your rework equipment. Every PCB/PCBA shop out there puts rework videos on its 'gram. It's just really hard to understand your business with this edgy/terse hustler kind of talk. Or your careers page where I get the sense that move fast and break things is the backend philosophy. Not a good look for someone who wants PCBs fast.

I so want this to work but holy cow I can't even understand where you guys are coming from.

I run in LAN/Developer Mode on the X1C and P1S and I sync filaments just fine. I don't monitor my prints with my phone but if I wanted to I wouldn't complain about the lack of Bambu support on the DEVELOPER MODE! I think the clear call to action here is to DEVELOP your own software.

Depends on the quality of the solder joint. Poor quality solder joints do not survive mechanical shock. If you are fighting a GND pin that sinks a lot of heat, using leadfree solder and you aren't that skilled...don't trim that lead flush with the PCB. Otherwise, if you are sure that the solder has wicked into the hole, trim away.

So if someone is telling you not to trim the lead...I'll let you draw your own conclusion.

Pipes and named FIFOs are easy and great. I say this after implementing various IPC methods (unix domain sockets with fd passing, POSIX message queues, 0MQ, XML RPC, local TCP sockets, just to name a few). Use a simple line oriented protocol. If you are passing complex data through your IPC, you know it's time for files. Shared memory is another way to do IPC but hopefully you have robust method of detecting the liveliness of your local processes and you want to give up the Unix file paradigm.

Can anyone explain to me the advantages of Pikchr over dotfiles?

Any reason why the first example (subtracted sphere) is rotating off axis or possibly has bad geometry?

Safe string manipulation never exceeds the bounds of the buffer. So negative values are dangerous, as all as any additions that would exceed the maximum size.

Negative lengths are not compatible with unsigned representation.

A system implementing invalid string values must choose a text encoding such as UTF-8 that supports the concept of an invalid character. Null termination is too flexible. As such is simple length prepending.

You're explanation is not inconsistent with my proposal, but you don't seem to grasp VALIDITY.

If you have studied Computer Science, you should know that the null string is quite a valid string.

Let's take strstr, which finds a matching substring needle in a haystack string.

-returns a NULL string if the needle is not in the haystack. -returns pointer to first matching substring.

Extend strstr with VALIDITY

Understood behaviour if both are valid.

Say the haystack is INVALID...as the return value is NULL or a strict substring of haystack, should return INVALID. A poison haystack should poison dependent strings.

Say the haystack is valid but the needle is INVALID...should return NULL. A valid string never contains an INVALID string as a subsequence.

Is it more sensible to cat 2 strings, but cut off the second one, then pass off the result as valid?

I would say let an INVALID string be length 0. Then accept that catting a valid and invalid string would result in a shorter length.

Which one do you think is safer?

I don't understand the fallibility. Clearly misuse of string functions is epidemic. A propagating INVALID string result makes it very clear there is a logic error and not an exploit.

I understand how one could shoot down implementations, but none has made a convincing argument about shooting down the idea.

Please support your argument against correctness by providing an example where an INVALID string as input to a suitable modified generic string function would result in a valid string.

NULL is the lack of any string. If one view a string as a result of an operation, then an INVALID string is the consequence of bad input to an operation.