Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon. Entire thread

Why browsers are bloated

Name: Anonymous 2014-07-27 0:20

https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/master/Source/WebCore/platform/Scrollbar.cpp
https://github.com/WebKit/webkit/blob/master/Source/WebCore/platform/win/ScrollbarThemeWin.cpp
Let's reinvent the fucking scrollbar, which every goddamn platform with a UI already has, and make it behave subtly different from the native one!

Right-click a native scrollbar in some other app:
- Scroll Here
- Top
- Bottom
- Page Up
- Page Down
- Scroll Up
- Scroll Down

Right-click a scrollbar in Chrome:
- Back
- Forward
- Reload
- Save As...
...

Right-click a scrollbar in Firefox and Opera:
Absolutely fucking nothing happens!

What the fuck!? How did these terminally retarded idiots get involved in creating one of the most important pieces of software to the average user?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-23 23:43

>>342
It can't! Just because the retards don't know it's meaning and use it incorrectly, it doesn't mean the word lost its true significance. Stop unironically butchering the language!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 2:19

>>343
From a linguistic point of view, you're wrong. Words change meanings over years based on how society uses them. There are plenty of words that no longer mean what they used to. "Scene" for instance, comes from the Greek word for "tent." The word "meritricious" means "unnecessarily ornate", when it originally meant "related to prostitutes."

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:08

>>344
Yes, those words have changed meanings from one thing to another unrelated one, but their old and new meaning usually don't imply any kind of contradiction.

On the other hand, "literally" went from meaning "literally" to meaning "figuratively", which is the exact opposite of the old meaning. Now tell me, how many times has this happened in history? I'm guessing none.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:15

>>345
You're gonna be so chuffed when you find out how wrong you are.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:36

>>344
From a linguistic point of view
I see your bluff, dumbass.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:37

>>346
Care to provide any examples? I hope I don't live in a world where "nigger" will be used as a slur for well-adjusted white people in the next few years just because "language evolves".

Name: Mr. ``linguistic'' 2014-11-24 3:38

i call it too, nigger

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:40

>>348
well-adjusted
mal*

white people
rain forest monkeys and eurotrash

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 3:41

>>350
Did you move to America, Krueger? What does Yannick's dick taste like? Please tell us.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 7:37

literally literally means figuratively now, just accept it.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 10:15

>>352
Somebody didn't take their logic 101 class, stupid nigger.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 17:01

>>345
Off the top of my head, the word "irony" and its derivatives. Furthermore, "terrible" and "incredible." (Originally meaning "inciting terror" and "unbelievable.")

>>347
You're right, I should have said a descriptivist linguistic point of view. There are still linguists who share >>343-kun's philosophy. They are wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 17:03

Dbus. Check em.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 18:57

Fucking retards, what non-problem are you arguing about this time? You'd be better off reading about datatypes a la carte by Wouter Swierstra. That's some real power there.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 19:31

>>356
This is a serious off-topic discussion.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 22:50

>>356
We re-implement Extensible Effects within `Data types à la carte' to demonstrate the difference with the Swierstra's original approach. It turns out that when it comes to effects, Data types à la carte are not extensible or composable. The insight from the Category Theory of evaluation as catamorphism proved misleading.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 22:53

>>358
We accept the inconveniences of ALCarte. With the superficial differences eliminated, with the extensible effects being `just' an ALCarte library, a gap emerges. The farther we look into it, the deeper it becomes, separating the two approaches by the modularity and compositionality, or the lack of it. The gap goes to the differences in design. The elegant ideas of catamorphisms and algebras, central to ALCarte, seems to have been counter-productive.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 22:58

>>359
elegant ideas of catamorphisms and algebras ... counter-productive

Well, ain't that the breaking news no one expected. Academic faggots have tied their dicks in a knot.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 23:33

I always knew type systems would turn out to be snake oil.

Let's go back to the days of BLISS and B, where everything is a word.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-24 23:56

>>361
Having a new processor where byte = word and word >= 48bit would be nice.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:03

>>362
You want 8 to be >= 48?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:13

>>363
Byte ≠ 8 bits in every architecture. You are thinking of octet.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:30

>>354
Fucking annoying stupid undergrad.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:35

>>358
What does any of that shit have to do with 1s and 0s?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:38

look at all this bullshit
https://twitter.com/jonsterling

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~swier004/

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:45

>>354
Incredible still means unbelievable. Unbelievable still means unbelievable.

You're confusing the figurative connotation of a word with its direct opposite. Something can be literally unbelievable
(space niggers shitting dicks on the moon)
or figuratively unbelievable
(you're so dumb/hot it's hard to believe, but it's not like I don't trust my personal judgment because I don't mean it in a literal sense).

Something can be literally terrible
(Nikita's mom inspires fear even amongst Putin's cabinet)
or figuratively terrible
(This quality I'm judging right now is so deep it almost scares me, but it's nothing serious so I have nothing to be afraid about)

Are you implying the current use of "literally" is somehow a figurative use of the original word? How can something be figuratively literal anyway?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:47

>>367
I remember a thread about him!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 0:50

For you fags who praise the niggers' idiocy and call it ``language evolution'', what word is one supposed to use now if one needs to convey the concept of wanting a phrase not to be interpreted figuratively?
Huh?!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:01

>>370
You can still use literally. Just because a word gains a new meaning doesn't mean the old meaning magically disappears, unless the old meaning becomes replaced by other words (like "dumb" and "gay", for example.) Given that literally is used in academic contexts, that's not likely to happen.

Also, since we're talking about language evolution, I'd like to point out that you used the phrase "wanting" in the context of "to desire", when that word originally meant "lacking." If the Shakespearian age prescriptivists were here today, they'd shun you for using "want" when you meant "will" or "wish."

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:16

Typical academia nihilists and their worship of the inferior masses (niggers and their skittles) and their non-progress. Nigger value of arbitrary change. Commie retards. muh gender queer power studies fuckin evil prascraptavists muh relativity muh subjectivism oy vey evil theists and their objective values approach! get out the nigger dicks!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:18

logic is arbitrary
these computers and their processors are magic and we can do anything with them
typetheorists.jpg

Name: Professor Shlomo Goldberg 2014-11-25 1:19

>>371
prescriptivists
Good goy.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:21

steven ``kike'' pinker is a jew
WHO WOULD OF THOUGHT
Sexual selection confirmed to be a jewish invetion.
implying peacocks have anything to do with humans
implying high percent of gene relation with chimps (niggers?) doesn't actually end up proving you wrong and showing that genes have nothing to do with human psychology

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:24

high level languages are a jewish invention

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 1:29

>>376
Eigo is ultimately based on Jewgo

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 4:58

>>327
1. Can be fixed with just the evaluations optimized: Flags
2. Only if really needed on the type of OS, like RTOS and embedded devices. What this really needs is the list of dependencies.
3. Can be removed. Usually not recommended for validations. On a Mass distribution, required (MDr). Personal binaries (PB), no .
4. Same as 2.. Can be removed. MDr, PB up to you.
5. Can be removed. Better system uses version with hash of "update." E.g.: version control systems, delta journal filesystem, GPG signatures, etc..
6. Required, if not binary fails. But with it you can replace many of the above issues.
7. Read 6.
8. Read 2.

Most of these are a personal user case scenarios versus mass distribution, where you HAVE TO notate these things. You can, if you want, tailor your own modified distribution of some base, like the multiple debian clones, and tailor it with the above solutions, for personal use.

At the end of the day, Jailing your applications with access controls is all you really need to do. X binary does not need to know or touch Y.common.dependencies, which they both share. X only knows the locations of a "common" directory where it can find X.dependencies. But Y Binary on it's own jail cannot, under any circumstance, know X binary called common.shared.dependencies. Only the shared.common.directory daemon knows X and Y asked for it, and it tells the AC deamon such, logs it and hashes it.

IoW: Stop using defaults, you silly goose. But thank you for insight. Never thought of this, until now.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 5:54

>>368
Yes, something incredible is by extention unbelievable, but nobody says "I don't believe you. You're being incredible." Likewise, nobody says "I'm so scared because that was terrible!" The two words have evolved different meanings. Incredible has come to be synonymous with amazing. Terribe has come to be synonymous with bad. If I translated "nomen dei terribilis est" as "God's name is terrible", I'm sure there would be plenty of christians offended by that usage.

Furthermore, as I pointed out on the /lounge/ discussion of this same topic, the word literally itself is a figurative usage. The word literally means "pertaining to letters." (From the Latin 'litteralis", "of letters", from "littera", "letter") Its usage outside of letters is by extension, and therefore, figurative. I also pointed out that etymology does not dictate meaning, but it is nonetheless an interesting note to add, especially since you suggested that word literally can't be used figuratively.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 8:30

Terrible! *pisses pants*

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-25 20:53

Did tdavis just join this thread?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-26 14:53

>>365
Stop being so uneducated and stupid please. Just accept the facts.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-26 15:51

>>382
Postmodernist.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-26 18:45

>>379
etymology does not dictate meaning
Well of course it doesn't. Meaning dictates meaning. When you use words wrong, you're just spouting nonsense.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 4:29

>>384
What was your point in agreeing with me?

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI 2014-11-27 15:25

>>327
Try determining those 8 things you listed from this binary (base 64'd):
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Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 19:47

>>327,386
Boy, this will be interesting.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 20:22

>>378
1. Can be fixed with just the evaluations optimized: Flags
What do you mean? Asking the compiler to optimise the evaluations?

5. Can be removed. Better system uses version with hash of "update." E.g.: version control systems, delta journal filesystem, GPG signatures, etc..
Still in binary if you made use of __DATE__ and __TIME__.

8. Read 2.
They are in my binary when I compile with default gcc without using a RTOS.

4. Same as 2..
You mean same as 3

Since most people use the default options or some popular options, using most of the flags will make NSA know what binaries belong to a specific author. This is the biggest problem. If NSA sees the "GCC (Debian 4.2)" missing they will know it's YOU and they will be able to find other binaries made by you.

There are many other stuff that may un-anonymise you, for example if you use only fgetc instead of getc and getchar, they will try to connect it with other binaries that do that.

>>386
How should I know?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 21:39

>>386
If that was true, DRM wouldn't exist. You would be able to create a unique encoding for every media file and put it up for download in a bundle with its unique decoder. Then the pirate and downloader would be able to claim that since it's just an random bytestream (i.e. not a media file in any widely known codec), it's not a media file and doesn't violate any copyrights.

But that doesn't happen. So you're wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 23:11

>>388
He can just put in the most widely used flags regardless of what actual options he used.
/thread

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 23:19

>>390
It still has problems.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-27 23:21

>>388
1. instead of having the compiler name in an executable file formats, just have compiled so it does not have any of that info. Making sure it is "generically" optimized.
5. Nope, you can remove __DATE__ and __TIME__ entirely, and just output a revision hash.
8.
They are in my binary when I compile with default gcc without using a RTOS.
Default, keyword there. Why I said you need to recompile using flags for more anonymity about it's source origin. Symbols can technically be done away with on any binary. Most flags and dependency calls can be anonymized too, by just the calling required hash of said Symbols and dependencies.

Even then, you are only identifying the binary with it, not the owner of the OS.
4. No, 2. The OS and distribution are always targeted for an architecture, always. If the binary has an OPcode from another arch it will horribly fail, even if you don't label the binary at all. You don;t even need to mark the OS and distribution, the binary will fail if it it's not running in the proper OS with it's dependencies. No need to mark the binary

Since most people use the default options or some popular options,
We are no most people, now, are we?

using most of the flags will make NSA know what binaries belong to a specific author.
Actually, if everyone is using the defaults to everything, it will make it worse for any intruder to distinguish it from another person that ran with the defaults. NSA included.

If NSA sees the "GCC (Debian 4.2)" missing they will know it's YOU and they will be able to find other binaries made by you.
And, that's the point of spreading a distribution, so that more than one person runs the same/similar system, making it difficult to distinguish it from others following your example. Why do you think people sharing files has done? Make one user more identifiable than the next by doing the same another has done?

if you use only fgetc instead of getc and getchar, they will try to connect it with other binaries that do that.
That's if you let the system poll the binaries in your system, like an improperly jailed system is (like those not jailed at all). Sure, being having a ``different'' scheme of binaries than the norm identifies you, but so does the simple MAC address or serial numbers of your device, which is the real threat to anonymity.

Also, try Cudder's Challenge: >>386
Simple raw binary, I assume assembled, not compiled.

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI 2014-11-28 15:37

>>392
You are already wrong.

Didn't realise it was 386GET!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-28 17:19

>>393
Shalom!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-29 22:11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covariance_and_contravariance_%28computer_science%29#Avoiding_the_need_for_covariant_argument_types
Unfortunately, most programming languages do not support multiple dispatch.
lol

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-30 9:01

>>395
LOL
Argument type Return type
C++ (since 1998), Java (since J2SE 5.0), Scala, D Invariant Covariant
C# Invariant Invariant
Sather Contravariant Covariant
Eiffel Covariant Covariant

Not one of the mainstream languages gets it right. Only Sather which I haven't even heard about prior to readint this article. All corporate languages are shit.

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI 2014-11-30 16:29

>>395,396
WTF is this OOP bullshit?

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-30 16:59

>>397
Jewish shit. Just like you!

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-30 21:11

KHTML is the promised land.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-30 21:30

>>399
KHTML is cut from the same exact cloth as all the other garbage. It goes all the way back to the overwrought compiler architectures used to build them. People these days don't understand the conceptual differences between a preprocessor, a compiler, a linker, and an assembler. These are separate phases and they need to be written as separate programs, and the language designer needs to refrain from doing the work of one phase while performing another.

Name: Anonymous 2014-11-30 23:07

Instead of making a new special browser, why not make different clients for different things?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 3:42

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTgzNDA

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 4:24

>>402
They could have written it in assembly and it would be twice as fast.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 8:21

404 NOT FOUND GET

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 8:31

>>403
The problem is, picture an ant walking across your garage floor, trying to make a straight line of it. It ain't gonna make a straight line. And you know this because you have perspective. You can see the ant walking around, going hee hee hee, look at him locally optimize for that rock, and now he's going off this way, right?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 10:24

>>405
GPS for ants.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-01 10:41

>>406
Yes, and it's called a "sufficiently smart compiler".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-03 4:02

Yes, and it's called a "sufficiently small penis".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-03 19:50

Just realized I can't right click my scroll bar in firefox. This is extremely annoying. Thanks for making me realize this OP

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-03 20:36

>>409
You can do it, 頑張れ！

Name: <<<=== Check 'em 2014-12-03 20:50

I AM THE MOST FUCKEN NGGER MATURE

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-03 23:54

>>411
Nice dbus br0 xD

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-04 0:29

413st for homestuck

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-04 2:41

https://github.com/AeroNotix/lispkit

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-04 2:52

>>414
A lisp browser using WebKit
It uses webkit, so it's nothing useful.
Why do you need a thread (http://progrider.org/prog/read/1417664167 ) for this if you posted it here?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-09 19:28

Why don't you help Dillo instead?
http://www.dillo.org/Plans.html

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-09 19:34

Here's the code http://hg.dillo.org/dillo/file/

Name: I'M A TEAPOT !MhMRSATORI 2014-12-10 14:14

>>416,417
Mentioned in >>110. Dildlo's parser is a bloody mess - just look at how it parses attributes - by scanning the whole damn tag every time. It's also not very HTML5-compliant either.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:29

tl,dr: It's not perfect. Therefore, it's completely worthless.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:41

>>418
Why not revamp the attribute parsing and send the patch to the developers?
And looks like they are working on HTML5, they have just added HTML5 character references for version 3.1.

If even then you aren't satisfied, why not fork it? It's a good starting point, just keep what's great and ditch what isn't. Simple.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:42

>>420
You didn't make this post about marijuana?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:43

Can you please make your web-browser source available so we can analyse it, test and send patches?
Just use cgit or something http://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:45

>>421
I didn't. Why would I?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:49

>>423
Because all posts should be about marijuana. Also, check my palindrome get.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 14:50

>>424
Nice get! Congratulations.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 15:10

>>420
It's a good starting point
It's only a good starting point if it's actually good and already does what you want it to do.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-10 19:05

>>426
Doesn't it?

Name: Cudder !MhMRSATORI 2014-12-11 15:59

>>426
+1

>>420
Because then I'd have to rewrite a whole lot more than that piece. I have a parser already (>>123). Also, C++.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 20:03

>>428
Can you share your parser, please?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 20:24

>>429
Can you shave your parses, please? 'Cause those pubes are pretty stinky.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 21:25

>>430
Look at this thief trying to profit from other people's work without putting in any of her own.

Do you know what we do to thieves in my country?

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 21:27

>>431
Call them by feminine pronouns? Oo, so painful.
Or maybe you make them your presidents like you did with Nixon? "I am not a crook", haha.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 23:11

>>431
her
CHECKEM!

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-11 23:32

>>432
He technically called you by a feminine possessive adjective. No pronoun.

>>433
Nice, bro xD

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:07

>>434
Sad that in English some pronouns are called "adjectives" for no reason. "Her" is the possessive form of "she" and thus is a pronoun. It serves the same purpose as all other pronouns (anaphora), as opposed to real possessive adjectives like "Jane's" or "Sussman's".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:41

>>435
Debatable. "Hers" would be a real pronoun, as it actually takes the place of a noun. "Her" is an adjective merely because it modifies a noun.

"I have my shoes and hers as well" (pronoun)
"I have her shoes" (adjective)

As for "Sussman's" you're describing an inflection of a noun, which doesn't make it an adjective.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:53

>>436
As for "her" you're describing an inflection of a pronoun, which doesn't make it an adjective.

Adjectives are definite, pronouns are anaphoric (i.e. refer to something dependent entirely on the context). "Green" or "Jane's" refer to greenness and Jane respectively in any context, while "her" refers to something that has as many meanings as there are possible contexts. Thus, "her" is a pronoun.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:55

>>436
Furthermore, "her" couldn't be a pronoun because it could never act as the subject or object of the verb (which is the definition of a noun - and pronouns act as substituted nouns.)

One couldn't say "her is great" nor "I have her"; one would always say "hers is great and "I have hers." The adjective her could only work if followed by a noun.

The same thing could be said for my/mine, your/yours, our/ours, etc.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 19:57

>>438
Then it's a proadjective. It acts as a substitution of an adjective but it's not an adjective.
But if "Sussman's" is a nout (an inflected form of a noun), then "her" is an inflected form of a pronoun.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 20:14

>>439
Just because her is derived etymologically from a pronoun doesn't make it an inflected form of a pronoun. The inflected form of the pronoun "she" would be "hers." The adjective "her" is related to it, yes, but that doesn't make it a pronoun in itself. It's actually a determiner. Some determiners can serve as both adjectives and pronouns, like "this" and "that", but "her" cannot. It can only describe nouns and cannot stand in for a noun by itself. Maybe a proadjective is the better term for it.

"Sussman's" is a noun because it's the possessive form. Yes, it can describe other nouns, as in "Sussman's book", but it can also stand by itself, as in "I read that book, but Sussman's is better."

Now don't get me wrong, some adjectives can act as nouns, as in "red is my favorite color" or "hand me the reds" (in reference to cigarettes.) But possessive adjectives cannot do this.

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 20:24

>>440
"Her" is an inflection, it's merely the genitive and accusative form of "she". "She" is nominative, "her" is genitive. Cf. German "Sie"-"Seine", "Er" - "Sein".

Name: Anonymous 2014-12-12 20:31

OK, my German is pretty rusty. But that's beside the point. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_pronouns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_personal_pronouns
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_pronouns

In both languages the forms for case as well as for possession are still considered pronouns, or the inflected versions of them. English is shares a lot of its ancestry with French and German; it's lost most of inflection in nouns and adjectives, but kept inflection in pronouns. It's only logical to consider words "her", "him" and "his" inflections of pronouns in consistency with their purpose and role in cognate languages.
Newer Posts
All trademarks and copyrights on this site are owned by their respective parties. All comments and posts are the responsibility of their own posters.
- Tinychan + 2ch Mode + RSS -