Youtube hearted comments of Anony Mousse (@anon_y_mousse).
-
2200
-
350
-
48
-
40
-
40
-
27
-
25
-
20
-
19
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
@graealex Just imagine the possibilities. As a programmer, I don't generally like RISC over CISC, especially if I have to do anything in assembly, but with an open architecture, and one that is already capable of running a full desktop O/S, I'm excited. I think at this point, the next step should be figuring out how to manufacture at cheaper facilities and for a cheaper price. Yeah, even above optimization. There are videos of people making their own IC's in home labs. I'm hoping the next step is full chips, albeit simple ones, and eventually home chip printers like we have 3D printers now. The future I envisioned as a kid is coming true in my lifetime, and I like it.
16
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Since the time I started with Linux the recommendation has always been to setup a separate partition, and being rather old school I've always complied. I've only got 12gb of RAM, though I wanted a more rounded number, so I setup a 32gb swap partition. I think the most I ever saw it get used was 6gb, but that was fairly heavy use with about 20 browser windows, each with about 10 tabs apiece and a media player in the background with some music going, and obviously about 20 terminal windows across 5 desktops, plus an emulator. Usual day to day usage is maybe 5 browser windows at 20 to 30 tabs total and 8 terminals, and even then it's usually not more than 2gb of swap used.
If that constitutes a profile in which I've severely over-allocated my swap space, I'd still do it just the same. I've got the disk space and I've never felt it get sluggish. Even on the old computer, when I had 256mb of RAM and a 1gb swap partition, Slackware still felt snappy.
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I doubt anyone will see this, but recursion is always unnecessary and should never be used. People keep bringing up tail recursion but not every algorithm can be written that way and if it can, it's just as easy to write and understand as simple iteration. If the iterative and recursive solutions are written correctly and they indeed yield the same result, the iterative solution will never crash due to any internal influences while it's possible that the recursive solution will, regardless of embedded system or desktop computer. This is because the stack is still limited in size even on desktops. If a developer can't translate a recursive algorithm into an iterative implementation, then they likely aren't very good anyway. One of the examples I keep seeing is for Fibonacci numbers, but I think the better example would be Quick Sort. If you've ever implemented one the correct way, you'll understand what I'm talking about, and even if you haven't, you might understand it should you read any C standard library implementation of it. You can have a simple solution that generally works, or a correct one, and you can have a complicated iterative implementation or a complex one. In the end, it's down to the programmer's skill.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1