The goose language has dynamic allocation via builtin types, like most systems for the past 40 years (Folks were using dynamic allocation on systems back when 640k was a lot of memory). Most embedded systems these days far exceed the capabilities of 40 year old desk top computers and also use extensive dynamic allocation.
The distinction for goose is that it has fixed locations where the free must occur (function return, effectively), not that it doesn't have dynamic allocation (because it does have dynamic allocation)
People working on cortex m series chips still static alloc though. :D
Them and game programmers. Also the HFT people from my understanding.
The latter two are due to latency concerns.
Still though, it is something that I think more engineers should try out once or twice. Thinking about how buffers actually need to be is a useful exercise.
It appears they got around that by making expanding and contracting data arrays builtin types the compiler impls. And it does this by creating what they call a "data stack" for each thing that needs to grow. To me it reads like "we have a builtin type that hides the heap allocation and does the free at the scope exit ", which is fine I guess as it keeps the nature of the language in tying lifetimes strictly to function scopes.
If your system has a way to take consistent snapshots in the filesystem (btrfs, zfs) or volume manager (lvm2, perhaps with a bit of filesystem support to obtain fs consistency), that can be used to avoid database downtime, if desired.
Despite all the fancy language, its more about aligning the AI behavior with the corporation's interests.
ie: the corporation wants the AI to behave a certain way for various reasons: to make it easier for them to avoid regulation, to make the corporation more money via different tiers of AI offerings, to ensure that the corporations products are hard for competitors to use, etc. And those are just the easy ones.
Every product is shaped this way. AI is not different.
Prompt regurgitation. Model was likely instructed to create the app to do this piece "by hand" (or a phrase with similar interpretation) because the author wanted to avoid pulling in a dependency of some kind.
It'd be very unfortunate if Postgres didn't have regression tests for data loss due to bad io patterns. Should be possible to do some checks against those in an appropriate test harness. Which might mean "have qemu run something we can kill off and examine the results".
If those don't exist, I hope folks recognize how useful they are and add them.
Yes, I agree it would be very nice to have a way to integrate ACME into zeroserve. I'm not sure if zeroserve's plugin system might allow one to add a plugin to support it?
zeroserve doesn't use the Linux kernel's eBPF runtime to run the eBPF it uses, so the constraints of the Linux kernel's eBPF runtime (chosen because of how the Linux kernel thinks about protecting the Linux kernel from user space) don't apply to zeroserve (or other tools that use the eBPF instruction set but don't use the Linux kernel's particular implementation)
They were crazy overzealous about not allowing these technologies for a long time. I'm pretty sure I had many posts about this complaining over the years.
I'm delighted about this and also really hated the debate that had surrounded it.
Bring up WebSerial and WebUSB and oh no, all of a sudden, my 'document browser should not be accessing hardware' - yes we get it, you think the web is a collection of documents and are technically - in the most strictest sense possible correct. Hyper TEXT Transfer Protocol and all that.
Of course I've been watching Netflix and YouTube on my Firefox 'document browser' for years, because if I couldn't then there would literally no hope of anyone using Firefox in the real world, but WebUSB and WebSerial people are nerds who we can argue the toss about document browsers with and prove wrong.
I think their site is just slow, potentially because more people than they are used to are trying to view it.
I was unable to load it initially (got an error from firefox) and had to re-attempt. Still slow if one forces a reload (shift-r, etc, to not use local cache).
The distinction for goose is that it has fixed locations where the free must occur (function return, effectively), not that it doesn't have dynamic allocation (because it does have dynamic allocation)
reply