- Can you elaborate?
For instance, how would better tooling help with storing a TCP buffer in global memory?
- That sounds like your answer is: "Yes, global variables".
That may be a perfectly good solution in many embedded environments, but in most other context's global variables are considered bad design or very limiting and impractical.
- In theory, yes, it could be...
But these are "European Tenders", which in practice usually translates to: race-to-the-bottom. Unless the tender was phrased specifically, from its very first inception, to aim at some polical goal - like open source, sovereignty, innovation, inclusiveness, etc.
- Ah. You're right, I phrased that ambiguously, sorry.
I meant to point out that there is no apple native cloud solution where you can run swift on apple hardware.
So if your iOS app needs to talk to a backend that you want to develop and host, you need to run that backend on an OS with cloud support, like Linux, some other Unix or windows. But not macOS or some other "Apple cloud" hosting.
For reasons stated above, you might in that case choose Swift.
- Only for iOS apps. Apple does not offer a backend.
- That, and it's solid, well supported software most people are familiar with.
From those doing the paperwork with Microsoft procurement for Dutch government I learned there have been legal disputes going on for years about what even constitutes "telemetry". That was a decade ago, and even then there was push to move away from Microsoft in the government. Toward open source, or even Oracle.
I suppose that with the Dutch being Dutch all the lobbying M$ needed was suggesting a discount.
- Another data point is to consider the price of nuclear submarines, in the 10s of billions. Admittedly, military spending leaves room for misestimation but the point is that many if not most of regulation around nuclear plants does not apply to marine vessels. Safety still plays a major role, but a very different one. More pragmatic, less regulatory.
- Not an expert either, but commonly nuclear energy tops the list of most expensive sources, even if we ignore cost of mining, waste storage and dismantling of old installations.
There are arguments to be made in favor of nuclear, but I don't think cost is one of them
- Stuff. Indeed it's mostly about stuff we buy (which is mostly from China).
If you want to lower emissions, not flying and not eating meat is important. But stuff we buy - clothes, electronics, cars, furniture, even solar panels: consider if you really need it, for how long will it last, and why can't it wait. Don't click "buy now"
- Would you say that lowering the climate goals / increasing emissions could meaningfully alleviate pressure on the housing market, migration, groceries, energy, etc.?
- Nothing wrong with building railways. And like tulip bulbs and AI some investment is indeed warranted.
The point is that people sometimes have way too high expectations about ROI and ignore or underestimate the greater (historical) context of the novelty.
- Another analogy that might prove more apt than 17th century tulip mania is Russian railways at end of 19th / start of 20th century. All the private money going into "sovereign companies" that might be snapped at an instant by respective American/Chinese/Korean/Taiwanese government.
- For reference, this book?
- https://www.amazon.com/Difference-Between-God-Larry-Ellison/...
Personally, I'm still in awe about the madness described in Softwar (2004)
- https://www.amazon.com/Softwar-Intimate-Portrait-Ellison-Ora...
- +1
Yes, even when you know what you're doing security incidents dan happen. And in those cases, your response to a vulnerable matters most.
The point is there are so many dumb mistakes and worrying design flaws that neglect and incompetence seems ample. Most likely they simply don't grasp what they're doing
- > Overall simple security design flaws but it's good to see a company that cares to fix them, even if they didn't take security seriously from the start.
It depends on what you mean by simple security design flaws. I'd rather frame it as, neglect or incompetence.
That isn't the same as malice, of course, and they deserve credits for their relatively professional response as you already pointed out.
But, come on, it reeks of people not understanding what they're doing. Not appreciating the context of a complicated device and delivering a high end service.
If they're not up to it, they should not be doing this.
- > the higher up the stack you go the less things like GC matter.
But suppose the very top of stack is high frequency trading system or traffic light controller. Car brakes...
Depending on your stack, determinism may or may not be a key part. And that is only possible if determinism is guaranteed all the way down.
- Nope. Just 2n: each chunk pair is added once without carry, and once won't carry=1.
For as long as radix=2, you either have a carry or you don't.
So it's mostly about the absence of abstraction, in the C example? C++ would offer the same convenience (with std::mutex and std::array globals), but in C it's more of a hassle. Gotcha.
One more question because I'm curious - where would you anticipate C would be able to squeeze out more performance in above example?