I looked at Zig again recently as an alternative to C, but I wasn't too sure about the tone on the introduction page, thinking some points are exagerrated and some I disagree with.
It's also not that minimalistic when it includes a package manager.
I like C because it's a bare-bones language providing only the necessities and nothing more. It's independent from libraries and build environment. Let people who have experience in those things work on that. Remeber the do only one thing and do it well? I think the urge to still add extra features is the reason why there's no real successor to C.
Go full science fiction and enable vertical or even upside-down roads for a 3D experience. :-)
Imagine an environment where ground/walls/ceilings always have gravity and one can build literal city mazes in horizontal and vertical directions. All that traffic going everywhere, oh my..
Pulling apart and de-++-ing OpenTTD version 12.2 to scratch my itch of simplifying and reorganising the game back to C code.
I rewrote it years ago to convert it to more realistic time (it's just way too fast), add scheduling features and make it more event based. Ended up at some complicated breaking point so I'm doing this first before adding features.
And then there's writing micro fiction and currently a YA fantasy novel.
I enjoyed LineageOS for years on my Samsung S4 until it finally broke from a fall.
It's a shame there was no image to install on my new Xcover 7, but not unexpected as it was a newly released phone. But I doubt there will be an alternative/stripped Android available for this model as I haven't seen anything supporting a Xcover version anywhere.
Best I can hope for is eventually a support for rooting and de-installing unwanted bloat with an app manager.
Note that Samsung devices with OneUI 8 remove bootloader unlocking altogether, making it impossible to 'root' the device or load LineageOS on it. The Xcover 7 is a newly released Samsung device that will most likely receive that update (it's live already in some regions), and even if you tried to stay on OneUI 7 the community is just unlikely to support it (as with other Samsung devices that are in the same boat today) since most devices in the wild will not be unlockable.
I don’t understand why. Surely the person likely to install Lineage will simply avoid modern Samsung phones, whereas the average user remains unaffected. So all Samsung gets is a tiny drop in sales and worse public image amongst some users?
Mine does have OneUI 8 already indeed, and I'm not that worried about it because I don't expect there will ever be an alternative OS for it.
I don't use it for much else than occasionally calling and messaging and have disabled what spyware I could, so it's fine enough for me. Also, I don't have any un-unistallable telecom provider crap on it. :-)
The S4 Mini ended up being a legendary long-termer as its drivers were built for the 3.10 kernel, which was still being patched by Red Hat two years ago.
you can use a treble GSI rom, I use one for two of my devices that lack community features and all the features work. Just make sure to not get OneUI8 that blocks bootloader unlock.
Just noticed you mention already updating, in that case check for the bootloader version of the current firmware, if Samsung didn't bump the number (for anti rollback) yet you can get back to previous version.
Same here since my new phone.
I wanted a very simple interface and have no need for widgets and don't like a grid of toy icons. I just saw the pro version has folders but I don't have a lot of programs installed so the flat list is managable.
I'm pulling apart and rewriting so far a little in C a personal fork of OpenTTD 12.2. I began on it a few years ago for the first time for the heck of it after patching for realtime, began again while adding features I wanted until I hit a bad enough snag, and now began again by first extracting most used functions and profiling with Valgrind inbetween.
Things I noticed are inconsistent coding styles, overly complex processes, unused(!) functions, inefficient data use, nothing surprising with a project worked on by various people in their spare time and their own ideas on how to code. And this isn't even talking about later versions. To me it's an example of how unrestricted access to bling features causes a mess.
Eventually I want it converted to C (C23), split apart in seperate functions with a decent source code organisation, and simplified processes to make it easier to understand what's going on and extend fuctionality. For this I need it simplified as possible and weed out the layer of complexity caused by C++ first. Going to take plenty of time, but I'm still having fun doing it (most of the time anyway :-p ).
I'm not advocating anything, but it's satifying to me to bring clarity to code and see small improvements to performance during the process at the same time. It also gave me an opportunity to develop a unique syntax style that visualises parts of the code better for me.
This is great! This so rare that people remove the complexity again that has accumulated over the years. Most of the programming world is just accumulating entropy and then people give up and start fresh at some point, which is just sad.
Would and how much would it shrink when if, while, and for were replaced by the simple goto routine? (after all, in assembly there is only jmp and no other fancy jump instruction (I assume) ).
And PS, it's "chose your own adventure". :-)
I love minimalism.
What fancy jumps are present in assembly depends on the CPU architecture. But there are always conditional jumps, like JNZ that jumps if the Zero flag isn't set.
The “fancy jump” is the branch instruction. As far as I know all ISAs have them. Even rv32i which is famously minimal has several branch instructions in addition to two forms of unconditional jump. Branches are typically used to construct if / for / while as well as && and || (because of short circuiting) and ternary (although some architectures may have special instructions for that that may or may not be faster than branches depending on the exact model). Without it you would have to use computed goto with a destination address computed without conditional execution using constant time techniques.
It only does if & while, not for. A goto in a single-pass thing would need separate handling for forwards vs backwards jumps, which involves keeping track of data per name (in a form where you can tell when it's not yet set; whereas if/while data is freely held in recursion stack). And you'd still need to handle at least `if ( expr ) goto foo;` to do any conditionals at all.
Unfortunately too expensive and large to set this up in the bedroom to help me sleep nowadays.
reply