On 1/8/23 06:51, Walter Bright wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that's a very apt take *at all*.  Frankly it's insulting.  You do realize video games are a *business*, right? They absolutely care about correctness and corruption.
> 
> Sorry I made it sound that way. Nobody is going to die if the display is a bit off. And the reason video game developers asked for D to support half-floats is because of speed, not accuracy. (It's in the Sargon library now.)
> 
> John Carmack famously used the fast inverse square root algorithm that was faster, but less accurate, than the usual method.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root

It's not "less accurate". John Carmack decides what the rules of the game are. This is not comparable at all to the game crashing with a segmentation fault in the middle of an online multiplayer session...

On 1/12/23 00:28, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/11/2023 5:43 AM, Don Allen wrote:
>> True. But it doesn't work perfectly, which was my point. The jammed 737 rudder actuator problem killed a lot of people and it took years for the NTSB and Boeing to figure it out. Need I mention the DC-10 cargo door latches? You can have ATC errors, pilot errors, etc. that get people killed. So flying is not a zero-risk proposition, just like everything else we've been talking about, including password managers.
> 
> The difference is, Boeing fixed that single point of failure problem as soon as they could. The rudder now has no known single point of failure problems.
> 
> The password manager remains a known, unfixed, single point of failure.

Well, what are you comparing it to? Reusing the same password and/or email for a lot of services probably carries an even higher risk.

On 1/12/23 03:32, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/11/2023 4:07 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> This is why I'm a big skeptic of cloud-based services (or indeed,
>> anything that relies on some remote network resource being always
>> available / secure).
> 
> Me too. You all know my practice of putting links to more information in code I write. I've been doing that for a long time. I've found a lot of those older links to Microsoft documentation have become deadends, and google doesn't reveal any replacement.
> 
> It's just gone. Poof.
> 

https://archive.org/web/

On 1/14/2023 10:01 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 1/12/23 00:28, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 1/11/2023 5:43 AM, Don Allen wrote:
>> The password manager remains a known, unfixed, single point of failure.
> Well, what are you comparing it to?
Having a different name and password for each site. Fortunately, many places that bill me allow me to pay via a "guest" payment rather than a login. Many places that require a login just to look at their site get a pass from me.

> Reusing the same password and/or email for a
> lot of services probably carries an even higher risk.

Of course, and I never suggested that.

On 1/14/2023 10:17 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 1/12/23 03:32, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Me too. You all know my practice of putting links to more information in code I write. I've been doing that for a long time. I've found a lot of those older links to Microsoft documentation have become deadends, and google doesn't reveal any replacement.
>>
>> It's just gone. Poof.
>>
> 
> https://archive.org/web/

If they were there, wouldn't google have found them? They disappeared around 2001.

On 1/14/23 22:24, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 1/14/2023 10:17 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 1/12/23 03:32, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Me too. You all know my practice of putting links to more information in code I write. I've been doing that for a long time. I've found a lot of those older links to Microsoft documentation have become deadends, and google doesn't reveal any replacement.
>>>
>>> It's just gone. Poof.
>>>
>>
>> https://archive.org/web/
> 
> If they were there, wouldn't google have found them? They disappeared around 2001.

I don't know. I don't remember being pointed towards archived webpages by google, but you can just enter the links there directly and find out.

On Wednesday, 21 December 2022 at 19:09:37 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=34084894
>
> I'm wondering. Should I just go ahead and implement [..] in ImportC?

Is this done yet?

btw. I think C' biggest mistake, is that it doesn't have classes.

On 1/14/2023 2:06 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> I don't know. I don't remember being pointed towards archived webpages by google, but you can just enter the links there directly and find out.

I never thought of that, thanks for the tip.