I've never seen that, and I've been using Windows professionally and personally for...ever.

Oof, yeah, those count. The fact that CMake was best-in-class when I wrote C++ professionally was...awful.

One list, two list, red list, blue list

(I genuinely thought that was where you were going with that for a line or two)

Exactly; the OP image is saying that there's no point to doing that.

...what is your point? Some software (in a language that doesn't have tail-recursion optimization) used recursion to handle user-provided input, and indeed it broke. Someone wrote to explain that that's a potential vulnerability, the author agreed, and fixed it. Who here is misunderstanding how computers implement recursion?

You are saying "yes" to a comment explaining why the Google AI response cannot possibly be correct, so what do you mean "and [it's] correct"?

Regular vim has that (as a compile option, like most of its features).

The bit in Big Hero 6 with the video records of Tadashi inventing Baymax are about as close to this as I've ever seen in a sci fi action movie.

I'm honestly not convinced JavaScript is good even for the front-end, because it's intentionally designed to swallow, ignore, and otherwise minimize errors; which is not helpful at all for development of any software. My point is that the only reason JavaScript is dominant in front-end development is that, prior to WASM, it was literally the only option; if that hadn't been the case, I doubt it would have become nearly so widely used.

Yeah, Boats' point there is definitely about semantic correctness rather than performance. Goroutines do indeed have good performance.

The poster finds it "kinda odd" that people don't immediately correctly interpret statements like this toot as being exclusively about the upstream kernel: https://fosstodon.org/@kernellogger/111742009818641713

I find it "kinda odd" that he expects that to be a natural reading of the original toot.

I'm not a performance expert by any means, but...it seems like the bit about there being "no situation, ever" in which a garbage collector that "worked just as well as in any other language" outperformed reference-counting GC. The things I've read about garbage collection generally indicate that a well-tuned garbage collector can be fast but nondeterministic, whereas reference-counting is deterministic but generally not faster on average. If Apple never invested significant resources in its GC, is it possible it just never performed as well as D's, Java's, or Go's?