ghusbands

Starfox had similar dialogue and predated it and MGS was contemporaneous, so the claim it makes it "modern" is weird. It's just "Zelda OoT if a different team made it".

You comment on this subject regularly in this way, but opinions do vary. Rob Pike says Go is not purely memory safe under concurrency. I as someone who has written multiple languages would describe it as "memory safe except for a pointer-skew hole undermining concurrency" or maybe say "race-free Go is memory-safe".

Seeing a correctness issue that makes Go not memory safe in some circumstances warrants questioning whether it is memory safe. On balance, you might say it is, but to constantly tell people they are wrong for saying otherwise is policing a shared term.

> The new simd package hides these differences by removing fixed-size vectors from the type system, and by only supporting those operations that are in the intersection of all the different platforms, and fills gaps in the intersection with efficient emulation in terms of other SIMD instructions.

The intersection would be the operations supported by all platforms and so would not have gaps.

Isn't one of the bugs around ten years old, now? Isn't ten years enough to call something a feature of the language rather than a bug?

I like Rust, but with this bug existing for so long, I personally no longer think of it as memory-safe.

This argument comes up a lot. It would turn everyone whose device became part of a botnet into a criminal. There's a reason that intent is important in law.

It's even more fatiguing to see so many comments about whether something is LLM-written or human-written. I hope we get past this stage, soon.

So someone used lower() from an unspecified version of Unicode when the standard was very specific about which to use. And they say "There's also a database of Unicode 3.2.0 data available on every version of Python (unicodedata.ucd_3_2_0) specifically for the StringPrep and IDNA algorithms", so the right version is available.

And then the fix is to hardcode a bunch of special cases which again depend on exactly which version of Unicode is in use, and so will break again in the same way in future, rather than just using the right version?

Refcounting is indeed a form of GC (and the languages that want to handle cycles then need an extra form of GC on top of it).

Regular expressions aren't an algorithm. DFA/NFA-based matching and backtracking are both valid implementation strategies, with different performance characteristics. Backtracking is arguably the most intuitive direct implementation. You and the other poster are confusing the mathematical definition with algorithms used to perform matching.

So, on a news discussion site, active discussion gets penalised. There really should be a human in the loop on that one.

The article now says "[UPDATE, SATURDAY 8 AUGUST: Consider this entire story retracted for now. Details forthcoming.]"

In common usage, "regex" means patterns accepted by regex engines like PCRE. Police the formal term "regular expression" if you like, but ordinary usage does not honour that distinction.

Also, it's not guaranteed that an engine implementing regular expressions will have O(n) time complexity - a backtracking engine can still have much worse performance on formal regular expressions.

Every optimisation like this increases the chance of other optimisations/vectorisations being able to usefully fire, and sometimes these very specific cases are themselves from optimisations or type/range restrictions.