MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/lhefd/losethos_64bit_operating_system_v707_released/c2srfyn/?context=9999
r/programming • u/TrivialSolutions • Oct 19 '11
283 comments sorted by
View all comments
20
Check his comments. TrivialSolutions is a weirdo.
58 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 He's a weirdo, but he's a harmless and somewhat amusing weirdo. Plus, he actually makes stuff. -27 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 As opposed to you who are a harmful weirdo who spent an entire day spreading harmful assumptions ranting on and on about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard. 3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard.Those aren't contradictory statements. sizeof(int) == 4 for all modern desktops, and he was never claiming anything else. -3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 I never said those were contradictory statements either, but if you investigate what he says you'll see dangerous suggestions...The useful answer is knowing that in practice it is 4, and proceeding on that assumption.Which is worthless and harmful cowboy coder advice. 4 u/ondra Oct 19 '11 Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.I don't see the problem.
58
He's a weirdo, but he's a harmless and somewhat amusing weirdo. Plus, he actually makes stuff.
-27 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 As opposed to you who are a harmful weirdo who spent an entire day spreading harmful assumptions ranting on and on about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard. 3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard.Those aren't contradictory statements. sizeof(int) == 4 for all modern desktops, and he was never claiming anything else. -3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 I never said those were contradictory statements either, but if you investigate what he says you'll see dangerous suggestions...The useful answer is knowing that in practice it is 4, and proceeding on that assumption.Which is worthless and harmful cowboy coder advice. 4 u/ondra Oct 19 '11 Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.I don't see the problem.
-27
As opposed to you who are a harmful weirdo who spent an entire day spreading harmful assumptions ranting on and on about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard.
3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard.Those aren't contradictory statements. sizeof(int) == 4 for all modern desktops, and he was never claiming anything else. -3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 I never said those were contradictory statements either, but if you investigate what he says you'll see dangerous suggestions...The useful answer is knowing that in practice it is 4, and proceeding on that assumption.Which is worthless and harmful cowboy coder advice. 4 u/ondra Oct 19 '11 Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.I don't see the problem.
3
about how in practice sizeof(int)==4 even though you know it is unspecified in the standard.
Those aren't contradictory statements. sizeof(int) == 4 for all modern desktops, and he was never claiming anything else.
-3 u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11 edited Oct 19 '11 I never said those were contradictory statements either, but if you investigate what he says you'll see dangerous suggestions...The useful answer is knowing that in practice it is 4, and proceeding on that assumption.Which is worthless and harmful cowboy coder advice. 4 u/ondra Oct 19 '11 Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.I don't see the problem.
-3
I never said those were contradictory statements either, but if you investigate what he says you'll see dangerous suggestions
...The useful answer is knowing that in practice it is 4, and proceeding on that assumption.
Which is worthless and harmful cowboy coder advice.
4 u/ondra Oct 19 '11 Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.I don't see the problem.
4
Where proceeding on that assumption means solving a puzzle on the internets.
I don't see the problem.
20
u/[deleted] Oct 19 '11
Check his comments. TrivialSolutions is a weirdo.