1631- | 12 years ago | on: How the Bitcoin protocol actually works
1631-'s comments
1631- | 12 years ago | on: German Patent Ruling Threatens Microsoft's Windows Phone Earnings From Android
IANAL, and I am not the one being quoted... with that said, it seems to me that you're reading way too much into that statement, and in the process, more-or-less ignoting the context. To me, what's being implied here is precedent...
1631- | 12 years ago | on: A JavaScript parser and interpreter written in Go
You can't rely on the order of imports initialization anyway. See http://golang.org/ref/spec#Program_execution .. I believe that's also the reason, you shouldn't call `flag.Parse()` in `init()`
1631- | 12 years ago | on: Go 1.3 Linker Overhaul
(I don't seem to be able to reply to your comment directly)
danieldk 8 minutes ago | link
>> As I've already said to someone else. This is about linking, not compilation. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to this discussion.
> And I am reacting to your grandparent, who was talking about compilation.
I'm fairly certain that that slow compile time is a combination of `compile + link` and the linking is probably a big part of the equation as well, just like it is in C and Go.
1631- | 12 years ago | on: Go 1.3 Linker Overhaul
> But that is mostly a problem because incremental compiling in C++ is difficult for well-known reasons. Incremental compiling is well-supported in many other languages (e.g. Java) and is usually very fast. So, the issue of compilation time is IMO overstated by Go proponents.
As I've already said to someone else. This is about linking, not compilation. The rest of your comment is irrelevant to this discussion.
1631- | 12 years ago | on: A JavaScript parser and interpreter written in Go
You say that, and yet here we are commenting on a forum? written in a Arc, a language implementation that wasn't strictly required.
1631- | 12 years ago | on: A JavaScript parser and interpreter written in Go
You could potentially also have an interface that defined methods for all the basic types `interface { AsString() (string, error), etc. }` and then each basic type implements this interface and returns an error if it can't/shouldn't be represented as the requested type. A type-switch could give you the same info you get from the tag and you don't pay for type-assertions
1631- | 12 years ago | on: Go 1.3 Linker Overhaul
1) no comment.
2) This is about the linker, not the compiler. You should compare the compilation times with the linking times instead of making assumptions.
page 1
> You can put lipstick on a pig...
Was this comment the spoken word in disguise? It sounded a little poetic to me.