But also, sorting big endian automatically groups elements associated with common functions making search, completions, and snippets easier (if you use them). I’m torn
But also, sorting big endian automatically groups elements associated with common functions making search, completions, and snippets easier (if you use them). I’m torn
If only you knew what they’ve been doing to the embedded devices lately…
Cross platform! You know, accessible across all our platforms
The only place I’ve seen ruby used extensively is in environments with a lot of regular expressions and string manipulation. Still not entirely sure why I’ve only seen it used there. The regex tools in ruby are nice but they aren’t nice enough to justify a language switch in my opinion…
I had a professor that did that exclusively to piss people off. It worked.
Shadow wizard exploit gang, we love popping shells
Big if true, do you have a link to follow that development? I’ve been curious about some languages that compile to JS+WASM but I’ve been waiting for something like this to finally cut out the middle man and give me an excuse to learn WASM directly.
This is exactly the reason why I can’t believe that was ever a requirement. I would have crazy respect for webassembly if it could stand on it’s own as it would allow people to completely move away from JS, but if JS is still in the stack in any way it will introduce a (even if it is minimal) compatibility and maintenance cost in the long run.
Even webassembly needs a JS stub loader right now. I still can’t believe that’s a requirement.
I strive to replace bill. I only work on undocumented code from 3rd parties.
Eh, I’ve seen some software internally prefer 0::0 instead of just ::0 or :: . Notation wise though you are correct, it is unnecessary.
0.0.0.0/0 0::0/0
You didn’t specify it couldn’t be in CIDR block notation…
deleted by creator
Well, assuming you meant type specifier, at least not before C99. After that it is required. C23 explicitly states that a type specifier is required for all declarations.
If you actually meant type qualifier, then no. That was never required.