1,965 karma · joined September 29, 2012
I don't know how much ups/fedex costs.
uClibc and musl libc have much better support for static linking, and you will be able to make a much smaller binary with them than you would static linking against glibc.
Same goes for indexing, you could write some functions like idx2(x, y, width, height), idx3(x, y, z, width, height, depth) that would compute the 1d index for you instead of using y*width+x (or the equivalent form adjusted for 1-based indexing) like you normally would.
The capabilities may be there, but in my experience many if not most projects do not use those capabilities. Most autotools based projects I've had to cross build are made by people without a great understanding of autotools internals and capabilities, so they often end up copy pasting things blindly from other projects until they get their native build working. Advanced build system stuff like cross building is not even considered.
These builds end up trying to execute a binary to do feature tests, or compile a program and use that to generate code, or do any number of things that break when cross building.
Would things be worse without autotools? Maybe so. In my personal experience projects using a simple Makefile were much easier to cross build and package than ones using autotools, but that's probably confounded by projects using a Makefile being simpler overall.
Even "good" software packages written by people who understand autotools like glib have issues. Just look at the official glib cross compiling instructions: https://developer.gnome.org/glib/stable/glib-cross-compiling... The "correct" way to cross compile it is to figure out all the autoconfigured values yourself, and write them into the configure cache.
Personally, I have had the least trouble with plain Makefile based packages. Yes you often have to reach into the Makefile's guts and modify it to make a working cross build, and you'll have to set the rpath manually, and install the files yourself, but at least it's easier than having to modify an autotools based build.
Autotools "just works", and when it doesn't it's very hard to fix. Makefiles don't "just work", but it's much easier to fix them yourself.
Some banks, like Ally, also offer a "no penalty" CD, which has lower interest rates than a regular CD, but you can pull your money out at any time without paying a penalty, like you would on a regular CD.
For example, echo "foo" | sudo tee /path/to/file
or any of the other ways listed here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/82256/how-do-i-use-sudo-...
You could do some kind of variable int encoding scheme, where longer strings would require more bytes for length, with some overhead to indicate how many length bytes are required for each string.
Also a lower replacement price. Someone might want to steal my expensive smart phone, or it might break and make me sad. If I had a $20 dedicated media player, then there's nothing to worry about.
I suppose I could be just lucky, but as is I could probably use it for another 4 years without trouble. The biggest issue is the soldered in RAM which is only 2GB. But that's plenty for emacs, light firefox, and even videos since it's got hardware decoding acceleration.
FWIW GNU sort can sort by human readable units using the -h option.
Does anyone know if there was any direct inspirational link from Tcl to Red/Rebol, or was it just by the nature of the idea of making an extensible langauge suitable for making lots of DSLs in?
char c;
do {
c = getchar();
} while (c != EOF);It's even more permissive. It doesn't require preserving copyright notices and including a copy of the license with source code forms, like the boost license does.
I'm not a lawyer, but the license uses the same text as the ISC license, but with the text imposing restrictions removed. So I think it should be as legally valid as the ISC license (again, I'm not a lawyer).
The problem with the boost license is it's pretty specific on "works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor." being allowed to be redistributed without including a license, so if I was making an interpreted language, or something that would embed it's own source code in the users code (eg a template library or something), then I don't think the boost license would allow them to redistribute that derived work, whereas 0BSD would.
The license is listed on OSI's page as the "Free Public License" for some reason https://opensource.org/licenses/FPL-1.0.0 , but the text is essentially the same.
Here's the whole 0BSD license text:
Copyright (C) DATE by AUTHOR
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee is hereby granted.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
https://github.com/kristapsdz/kcgi
It's an ad because they are advertising the iCloud service to you. It's not just that they say "Your iCloud is running out of free space", it's that they say "Your iCloud is running out of free space, buy more space here!"