explodingwaffle

coded entirely or partially in assembly, i presume?

I really like this concept (though the post is terribly named as others have said). "Databases that are easy to make as documents" is so obvious that you wonder why it isn't more of a thing. Add in "untitled" databases that live in a session/browser so you can "try before you buy", maybe the option for single file databases with no intermediary/service (so you have a Databases folder that is as messy as your Downloads folder... but is that really so bad? better than a password manager full of garbage services IMO), and you basically get EASY seperation between application and data, which is Good for a lot of reasons (lock-in, ownership etc)

man, HN is awesome

just because it is digital doesn't mean it has to be a microcontroller though, right?? i see no reason this wouldnt just be a state machine or whatever out of plain old logic.

this is great, thanks for pointing to it! been looking for this ideal sort of RSS reader

This is awesome! Just so you know, you are legally obligated to do Bad Apple when interest dies down.

I tested with 1.1.1.1 first, didn’t get anything, and gave up for the night. Maybe I should put a different provider as DNS backup? (any DNS gurus to say that that’s a bad idea?)

Thoughts on Zephyr? Especially wrt code size. I've heard all kinds of things regarding the requirement for it with Nordic chips

Who says you can’t make a library that does both? Rust makes it pretty easy to conditionally compile code based on architecture.

It could even be possible to make some sort of “ABA primitive” and use that for these sort of data structures. This could well exist: I’ve not looked. These sorts of things really aren’t that common in my experience.

On LR/SC: to any atomics experts listening, isn’t it technically “obstruction-free” (as per the Wikipedia definitions at least) rather than lock-free? (though in practice this makes basically no difference and still counts as lock-free in the C++ (and Rust) sense) Just something that stuck out last time I got sucked into this rabbit hole.

TIL this github "list" feature. neat

What would you consider the “RISC-V equivalent” of TrustZone? Last time I was curious I didn’t find anything.

(FWIW I agree with the other commenter that these ""security"" features are useless, and feel to me more like check-box compliance than anything else (Why does TrustZone work with function calls? What’s wrong with IPC! Also, what’s wrong with privileged mode?). Just seems like a bit of a waste of silicon really.)

that page + the book Hacker's Delight are a big part of the reason I am so convinced of this :)

If compilers/languages/standard libraries provided these bit permutations, and it was just something ~everyone had learned, it would be a lot easier to work with bits without needing to come up with the bitwise ops (or use that generator). In addition it would probably make better use of the hardware: sure, people like to pretend that we’re still programming C for PDP11, but modern hardware supports more operations than C has operators for (RISC-V B extension and co have the right idea <3)

Modern compilers are probably pretty good? but I doubt they are perfect at turning code like that in OP into the best instructions. It is probably a bit late for C/C++ though. maaaybe possible to get it into LLVM and Rust.

The more and more bit-hacks I see, the more convinced I am that they should be handled by a cleverer compiler. Some intrinsic(s) where you say “do x, y, to these bits” and it just figures out the optimum way of doing it for whatever platform you compile for.