Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kryptiskt's commentslogin

You lose in versatility, then you can't add user-defined operators, which is pretty easy with a Pratt parser.

You can have user-defined operators with plain old recursive descent.

Consider if you had functions called parse_user_ops_precedence_1, parse_user_ops_precedence_2, etc. These would simply take a table of user-defined operators as an argument (or reference some shared/global state), and participate in the same recursive callstack as all your other parsing functions.


The Web is a side project of CERN, they should have gotten a comped top-level domain by rights.

All circuits are analog when physically realized, the digital view is an abstraction.

I don't see how this would help in the least, what kind of criminal would be dissuaded by paying a small fee to set an elaborate scheme such as this in motion? This is not a spamming attack where the sheer volume would be costly. It doesn't even help to get a credit card on file, since they can use stolen CC numbers.

It's far more likely that hobbyists will be hurt than someone that can just write off the cost as a small expense for their criminal scheme.


Only because C code presents so many juicy security holes by default that it's completely unnecessary to subvert the projects to add them.

It's not a restriction born out of purity, notably uncompromising Haskell allows orphan instances.

That's actually a problem with Tahoe, it is not something new and bold, it's old-fashioned. Transparency already has come and gone as a UI fad, and it doesn't really make any big difference if you throw computationally expensive effects at it.

As if Google Play itself isn't a cesspool full of scammers, or Google ads, or Youtube. As long as Google get their cut they don't give a shit about scams. For a reality check, turn off your adblockers and you'll see how much Google profits from scams. Any solution to scamming can't involve Google, since they long have been a willing tool for scammers.

Pretending that this is about anything but Google's greed is giving them far too much credit.


> If it did, corporations would just start crapping up Linux the way they've crapped up Windows.

They do already, my work laptop runs the corporate spin of Ubuntu, complete with Crowdstrike, which goes absolutely crazy and chews all the CPU whenever I do a Yocto build.


I used to be able to reliably BSOD a work computer by doing a largish git pull inside WSL2, with the culprit seemingly being the McAfee realtime scanner. VirtualBox VMs were fine though. Not confidence-inspiring!


Several of the lean GUI text editors are built on Scintilla (https://scintilla.org/), which provides a cross-platform editing component that can be integrated in GTK, Windows or Mac GUI apps. Maybe that has too much bells and whistles for you, since it's both about editing and presentation.


I guess I might be misunderstanding what Scintilla is? Everything I've seen with it has it coupled with native controls, like a winform control or a Qt control. Are you saying that the library can be used, on its own, without a graphical component? If so, that might fit the bill!


Yes, Scintilla is a text editor engine library. It's not tied to any particular UI or technology. Out of the box it's not a text editor yet; you provide the frontend. You get all the "table stakes" right away if you build your editor on this library.

Here's Scintilla driving a TUI text editor: https://github.com/magiblot/turbo

Here's Scintilla driving a custom GUI control (not the system text control): https://github.com/desjarlais/Scintilla.NET

Same engine, different frontends. The engine has a series of hooks that you implement in whichever way you please for your particular interface. It's definitely the presumptive choice here.


Ah, I see! Very cool! Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was looking for, so this should give me what I need to test some proof of concepts. Thanks for the links! I do wish there were something a little more ergonomic, but I'm way too far into the begging to be choosing, here, so I'm quite happy to take what I can get.

In any case, I really do appreciate the dual links. It's so much harder to suss out the boundaries of a library with only one implementation. This was really helpful.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: