Yes, but they may not always work. While generally true there are still some edge cases.
SQL Server connections are one example where I do get .exe with the .pdb in the publish directory but the .exe won't run correctly without the "Microsoft.Data.SqlClient.SNI.dll" file.
Another example are any libraries that have "RequiresDynamicCodeAttribute" requirements.
If you left it at the initial question this might have been an entirely different thread.
"There are already so many Unix like operating systems of all sizes written in C... If I were to go to such an effort, I would try another language...It is meanwhile more than clear that it can be done in C...so it would actually be more interesting to explore the suitability of other languages for such a task."
Based on your earlier remarks why not say knitters should use different material or needles to make it more interesting? Why do the same pattern over again when so many knitters have probably knit the very same pattern already.
Because the statements above miss the point of what hobby means to most people.
>> and apparently you can't answer the questions either
No one is required to. Not anyone on HN or the hobbyist in question.
From the about page: "... However, you should do Advent of Code in a way that is useful to you, and so it is completely fine to choose an approach that meets your goals and ignore the leaderboard entirely."
I'm used to reading about a given C/C++ program being implemented in Rust, and was delighted to see such an effort in a functional programming language.
I know little about functional programming languages but I've always been interested in how languages like Ada and now Rust can help programmers write safer code. I'm curious what advantages a rewrite of a C/C++ app in a FP language provides and also what advantages a FP language brings in comparison to a language like Rust.
It reminded me of The Twin spreadsheet from the late 1980s. I worked at a plastics plant that used it in their color lab until at least 2013 when I left. There were thousands of color recipes and no one wanted to try and convert all of that to a newer spreadsheet.
That's a really good point. I'm using macOS and I tested -w option against a CSV file that is about 430MB in size and has about 18,000,000 words in it. The time was 0.989. When I ran wc2 on the same file, it clocked in at 0.943.
I wondered what I was doing wrong and came back to the comments section and found your comment. Ah.
Edit: interestingly, the newline count time was 0.458 with the macOS version and 0.943 with wc2.
I tried a quick search between mdfind, bfs, and find to locate all README.md files in my home directory. bfs and find both found 2930 files and took 8.5s and 47.5s respectively. mdfind took 0.1s but found only 2400 files.
I worked with an engineer who didn't like Macs. I don't prefer the "Magic Mouse" however I bought it when it first came out and showed it to him. Not long after that I saw him using the mouse and he used it for years. He absolutely loved it.
