throwaway17_17

il y a 4 joursdiscuss

Guilty Gear and Hi-Fi Rush are both Unreal 4 games and a lot of the comments in this thread are about the Lumen+Nanite ‘grain’ that seems very present in Unreal 5.

I certainly think there is was inflection point for Unreal’s inherent complexity moving to 5 that made it exponentially more difficult to customize when compared to 4 as far as implementing highly customized renderers (in particular) and overall customization in general.

throwaway17_17

il y a 15 joursdiscuss

I think this is a situation where the term systems programming is too un- or ill-defined to be anything but a semantic argument in waiting. I am not particularly fond of the broader meaning systems programming has taken on but I understand it. As a term of art for developers systems programming now encompasses:

   - infrastructure development like Docker and Kubernetes
   - general utilities programming like grep, terminal emulators, compilers, etc
   - performance sensitive artifacts like OS kernels, video/audio codecs, hardware interaction layers

and more in common usage. Without some sort of communal understanding of the taxonomy of development areas discussing things like GC in systems programming becomes tedious and often prone to arguing past people due to conflicting understanding of terminology.

I do think there are genuinely ripe areas of research and development for performance and determinism sensitive memory management and subsequent outreach to make sure the potentially effected developers and language designers actually have a chance to evaluate any advancements. But it sure seems like it would take an act of ‘developer congress’ to make sure people were talking about the same things.

throwaway17_17

il y a 15 joursdiscuss

What are you describing as a frame update? I am trying to be as generous as possible to your comment and thereby assuming there is a disconnect between my understanding of ‘frame update’ and yours. Genuinely curious, because that term as I am familiar with it means the entire time allotted to generating and rendering a single frame for display. If that’s what you meant, you are asserting that a ‘modern game’ is typically running at 333 fps. I am typically using the term ‘modern game’ to describe newly releasing AAA games nearly all of which struggle on many hardware configurations to achieve a steady 60 fps (which is 16 ms per frame).

throwaway17_17

il y a 15 joursdiscuss

Do you know of any articles, tests, or implementation breakdowns that show this. I don’t have the personal experience to agree, but if that’s the case Inwould really like to know how the improvements were achieved.

throwaway17_17

il y a 15 joursdiscuss

If this is a joke, I actually chuckled.

But, maybe this is a terminology issue conflating an embeddable language with a language used for embedded programming. I think this is one of those CS issues prevalent for non-native English speakers (especially when those devs are relying on translations of text without LLM style semantic analysis of the source).

The first refers to the shipping of a language interpreter within the executable of a program, where that interpreter then processes “scripts”, data files, high level non-programmer editable object attributes or behaviors, etc. The most prevalent example of this is shipping a Lua interpreter inside a video game for interpreting hot reloadable asset scripts. The second usage of embedded is the implication that code is being run on a microcontroller or SoC ‘embedded’ within some other product or device.

throwaway17_17

il y a 15 joursdiscuss

I agree with your objection to treating goroutines as the baseline implementation of fibers. However, I would disagree with categorizing the feature as a library feature vs a language level feature. In “low-level” languages (C, Rust, Zig, C++, etc) the ability and option exists for having ‘green threads’ with most of their commonly assumed characteristics be library based constructs (although see [1] for why that’s not true for threads in general ). However, almost all managed/runtime-required/scripting/“high level” languages lack the facilities to implement almost any realistic types of fibers and any FFI based implementations are going to suffer severe syntax integration issues (I am assuming somewhat on this point).

TL;DR Green threads are on a library feature for low level languages.

1 - Threads Cannot Be Implemented as Libraries (Boehm 2005), https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1064978.1065042

throwaway17_17

le mois dernierdiscuss

Not to derail this thread on Mach, which as I stated in another comment has some pretty appealing characteristics for me, but since you’re here and the dev of another ‘low-level’ programming language:

I read through a segment of your language’s docs when it was on the front page a couple of days ago ago. Since you’re talking safety’s is there a link (or just a suggested starting point) to read about Ü’s safety mechanisms and guarantees?

I feel like I sit along a different axis in the safe versus unsafe discourse, so I don’t discount languages like Zig or Mach for not providing opt-out safety for certain areas of concern and I don’t give extra credit to languages like Rust or Ü for having those features. What I am interested in is what choices where made and why, then what do those choices mean for me as a potential user of a language.

throwaway17_17

le mois dernierdiscuss

I find the goals of explicitness and maintainability to be really pitched to my current taste. From a quick view it looks like the syntax is approaching a local maximum for conforming to expectations and not sacrificing the explicitness sought.

As the developer, where do you land on meta-programming for the language? I applaud the straight up nature of ‘the battery will never be included’ and the reminder to consider the possibility of a feature being a library instead of a syntax or language feature. I certainly don’t think meta-programming is essential, but the ability can contribute to the ease of use for library code.

And I’ll ask now since it always comes up, where does Mach stand on ‘advanced’ type theory uses for ‘low-level’ programming? I noticed the admonition that safety is the developers job which is sure to bring some ‘heat’ from the memory-safety-is-table-stakes crowd, in light of that, where does Mach stand regarding ways to ensure ‘safety’?

throwaway17_17

il y a 3 moisdiscuss

In the ‘Caveats’ section the author discusses that the advice only applies to types constructed via Record Syntax and that datatypes with positional arguments are exempt from the rule/preference proposed.

I wonder if the argument for the do notation’s usage being better along several metrics can stand generalization. There are sometimes discussions about the merits of named argument to functions and data constructors versus the much more common positional syntax, the arguments made in favor of more ‘broad spectrum’ named arguments reflect the more specific pro’s being argued in TFA.

It would be interesting to see what types of syntax additions, and the accompanying weight of those additions throughout an entire code base, would prove an acceptable trade off for moving away from positional arguments being the default. I almost assume the extra line noise and extra name selection would be the most negative effects, but the most positive effects are harder for me to guess at. But overall, the reaction of devs to more ‘book keeping’ in there code is hardly ever positive.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

After so wrote the comment below I realized that it really is just ‘um, actually…’ about discussing using concurrency vs implementing it. It’s probably not needed, but I do like my wording so I’m posting it for personal posterity.

In the context of an article about C++’s coroutines for building concurrency I think structured concurrency is out of scope. Structured concurrency is an effective and, reasonably, efficient idiom for handling a substantial percentage of concurrent workloads (which in light of your parent’s comment is probably why you brought up structured concurrency as a solution); however, C++ coroutines are pitched several levels of abstraction below where structured concurrency is implemented.

Additionally, there is the implementation requirements to have Trio style structured concurrency function. I’m almost certain a garbage collector is not required so that probably isn’t an issue, but, the implementation of the nurseries and the associated memory management required are independent implementations that C++ will almost certainly never impose as a base requirement to have concurrency. There are also some pretty effective cancelation strategies presumed in Trio which would also have to be positioned as requirements.

Not really a critique on the idiom, but I think it’s worth mentioning that a higher level solution is not always applicable given a lower level language feature’s expected usage. Particularly where implementing concurrency, as in the C++ coroutines, versus using concurrency, as in Trio.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

Is there a reason Rust would not (as it was done in the ‘good ole days’) index the table via pointer arithmetic from .data? Also, I’m assuming that because you are discussing new devs, that they are not making the implementation decision to place the table on the heap and using Rist’s subscript operator, which I would understand Rust not doing as default. I can not think of a reason that the table should ever be put on the stack for reading a single value, so that being the default seems an oddly pessimistic default. I could be missing something regarding how Rust handles literal data ‘written out’ into source though.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

Regarding your mention of compiler magic and Swift, I don’t know much about the language, but I have read a handful of discussions/blogs about the compiler and the techniques used for its implementation. One of the purported benefits/points of pride for Swift that stood out to me and I still remember was something to the effect of Swift being fundamentally against features/abstractions/‘things’ being built in. In particular they claimed the example of Swift not having any literal types (ints, sized ints, bools, etc) “built in” to the compiler but were defined in the language.

I don’t doubt your point (I know enough about Swift’s generic resolution crapshow during semantic analysis to be justified in assuming the worst) but can you think of any areas worth looking into for expansion of the compiler magic issues.

I have a near reflexive revulsion for the kinds of non-composability and destruction of principled, theoretically sound language design that tends to come from compiler magic and shortcuts, so always looking for more reading to enrage myself.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I don’t know if the language is yours, but I think the wording and its intended meaning (the sentence starting with ‘The core implementation…’) may be one of the most concise statements of my personal programming language design ethos. I’m jealous that I didn’t come up with it. I will certainly credit you when I steal it for my WIP language.

I will be adding the following to my “Primary Design Criteria” list: The core design and implementation of any language feature is explicitly targeted at the efficient creation of opinionated, composable abstractions rather than providing those abstractions at the language level.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I think your comment leads to discussing a distinct third ‘cause’ for open source development: where a developer realizes their ambition is greater than their abilities, either in the technical sense or (more likely) in the sense that a single developer stands no realistic chance of ever completing an implementation of the idea alone.

For this class of open source development the authors essentially require the contributions and gifts of others for the project to even be realizable. I think this is the underlying basis for open source’s move toward a more “community” development model. It has led to open source being viewed by many as requiring a community and a “managed” community at that, to be open source. I think this class of open source is going to be impacted the most by LLM ‘assisted’ development (no matter how much distaste it generates for me and many others), where the hurdles of large scale development are more in reach (seemingly) for solo or very small groups of developers.

The really interesting thing is going to be to see how many of these projects move toward the Carmack ‘gift’ model and look to leave the community-centric model behind as an unnecessary externality.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I think your idealized list of attributes of “open source” is admirable. However, the apprenticeship, comradery, and support are a specific and often sought out feature of some development ‘communities’ for specific software. I’d also say that the ‘loss’ when fixes, updates, optimizations of open source software is not up-streamed is real, but this has very little to do with adopting or promoting the externalities (no matter how laudable) you want to see in certain software’s development.

I personally don’t care about the community, its composition, or its internal structure for a lot of software I use. Even when I’m compiling from source and customizing smaller applications for personal efficiency, I’m not usually interested in being a part of some distributed community centered on that software. Some times I am engaged in the community and appreciate it and the work required to maintain that community. But in either case, the software is “open source”.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I always think about this section when I consider making my personal programming language public. I think if language development was, in 2026, happing the way ESR describes Linux here I might be more persuaded to release. But as it stands now, almost all modern language development is done in the rigid, semi-planned, hierarchical, and “cathedral”-esque development style.

The expectations for language developers is currently huge burden and a massive undertaking, even for small languages that look to publicize at nearly any level. The amount of users that seem to insist on participation in the language’s progress, semantics, or implementation is the vast majority of any online/vocal user base and those same voices seem to view languages with different development models as inherently toys.

I’m sure this is where I am expected to reference Rich Hickey’s comments/post about Clojure development, but I don’t have the link on mobile. But the discussions are legion and legendary at this point.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I think you have confused RMS (Richard Stallman) and ESR (Eric S. Raymond). It was ESR that coined and popularized the cathedral and bazaar development analogy and terminology. It was also ESR who was at the conference your comment is discussing. RMS is “free software”, copyleft, and GNU. ESR is “open source” and the author of ‘The Cathedral and the Bazaar”.

Of course, I could have misunderstood your comment, if so, mea culpa and feel free to ignore.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

True, apparently I got backspace happy when Inposted the reply on mobile. I was talking about the belief by a perspective juror that law enforcement personnel are more credible or trustworthy than others due to their status as law enforcement personnel.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

I agree that from the perspective of the implementation of async code, it is in many ways an application doing its own threading and context switching. However, your Parent comment is written from the perspective of the dev writing and reasoning about the code. In that case, from the devs perspective, async is there to make concurrent code ‘look like’ (since it certainly is not actually) sequential code.

I think this type of confusion (or more likely people talking past one another in most cases) is a fairly common problem in discussing programming languages and specific implementations of concepts in a language. In this case the perceived purpose of an abstraction based on a particular “view point”, leads to awkward discussions about those abstractions, their usefulness, and their semantics. I don’t know if there is way to fix these sorts of things (even when someone is just reading a comment thread), but maybe pointing it out can serve to highlight when it happens.

throwaway17_17

il y a 4 moisdiscuss

To be specific, and it is a lot of the reason why this 5 month delay happened, but she was not dragged then held, she was arrested, then held, then dragged. She was released 5 days after finally getting to Dakota, if they had actually gone and gotten her the hold would have been ~30 days plus the 5 prior to interview and charges dropped.

It isn’t much of a salve, but the particulars do matter when trying to assess fault to the proper parties (who are still clearly the Fargo cops in this particular tragedy).