Dogmatic statements like this lead to bad, messy code. I’m a firm believer that you should use whatever style fits the problem most.

Although I agree most code would be better if people followed this dogma, sometimes mutability is just more clean/idiomatic/efficient/…

Tar Xtract Ze Vucking File

Edit: apparently someone else already mentioned this, oops

Reed hucks = redux Heather net = ethernet

Oh no, strangers on the internet know I had sex and there were dog-like noises! That’s the exact same as people who know me IRL such as family or coworkers! I shall now sink through the ground in shame!

Is that just like the shared memory model of parallel computing or are there any added complications? Have you done this before? Please do share your experiences if so cause now I’m interested :p

FreeRTOS tasks are basically processes, IIRC other rtoses have similar mechanics too

if(condition) statement; Is valid in typical C-style syntax.

if condition { … }

Is invalid in typical C-style syntax

1. several languages that are still in use have eager evaluation.

2. I’m a dumb programmer. The more I need to keep implicit behaviour in mind, the higher the probability I’m writing bugs. Short circuit evaluation is an optimization technique IMO and shouldn’t be relied upon for control flow.

3. The aggressive tone you’re using is completely unnecessary and immature, so I’ll refrain from responding any further. Have a nice day.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-circuit_evaluation

Yes I am serious.

1. That’s behaviour that’s just part of language design. If you rely on it you should probably check how the language you’re using handles it.

2. relying on that behaviour sounds a lot like “clever” (read unnecessarily unreadable) code

Dot in dutch is punt

Does commercial mean closed source in this context though? It seems like a waste of resources not to provide the source code for an rtos.

Considering how small in size they tend to be + with their power/computational constraints I can’t imagine they have very effective DRM in place so it shouldn’t take that much to reverse engineer.

May as well just provide the source under some very restrictive license.

Don’t you have the code in most cases? Like with e.g. freeRTOS? That’s fully open source

Isn’t that still the same exact process as a normal compiler except in the case of embedded systems your OS is like a couple kilobytes large and just compiled along with the rest of your code?

As in, are those “crazy optimizations” not just standard compiler techniques, except applied to the entire OS+applications?

Did you truly read what I said? The only logical way I can frame your comment is that you glanced at what I wrote down and started writing a reply.

To a regular average windows user, ubuntu is incredibly complicated. When you learm how it works and how you’re supposed to use it, it becomes incredibly easy. The “hard” part of ubuntu is the paradigm shift from windows to the linux ecosystem.

Similarly, to an average linux user nixos is “hard” because it does things completely differently from other linux distros. But once you’re used to it, it just makes sense and is easy.

So the comparison is average windows user -> ubuntu vs average linux user -> nixos. Not average user -> ubuntu vs average user -> nixos.

Finally: Nixos documentation is IMO 100x better than ubuntu documentation. Whenever I experience any issue with ubuntu it’s easier to just load up the arch wiki and hope it’s similar than it is to try and find anything specific for ubuntu that isn’t either 10 years out of date, a massive gaping security risk or just plain dumb. The nixos wiki may not be perfect but it has always been sufficient for my needs, and I have to run a decent amount of very niche pieces of software.

Flipping burgers is enough to pay for chemotherapy. Src: am european

It’s incredibly complicated in the same way that ubuntu is incredibly complicated to a lifelong windows user.

It just requires a bit of a paradigm shift which includes a learning curve but IMO once you’re past that point it’s intuitive and even easier than other distros.

https://nixos.wiki/wiki/Linux_kernel

You can specify custom parts of the config that enables that module and/or extra module packages.

If you specify a custom part of the config then ye sure you’ll be compiling the kernel on each kernel update but you don’t need to manually configure it

The killer feature is declarative system management. Reproducible systems is just one of the resulting properties. You want to just try out KDE for a week coming from gnome? Good luck getting rid of all the bloat when switching back on arch. You want to run a program once but not necessarily have it installed on your system? You can do that with nixos. You messed something up and your system now doesn’t boot? You can go back to a previous iteration with nixos, no need to find your liveUSB to start messing with chrooting and stuff. Ever find yourself asking where the configuration file for is so you can edit it? The answer is /etc/configuration.nix Ever had to merge older configs with newer ones because the software updated? (If no, you haven’t been using arch for long) why would you need to do that? You declaratively specified how you want your system to behave and nixos will figure out how to translate that to the new config.

And that’s just the “killer” features I use on a day to day basis

It’s always fixable, just not always worth the effort