That's what I initially thought too, though having read and understood little of the article, is sqlite not a consideration too? Or does it take up too much memory?
Keeping in mind that STM32 is on the high end of what you might call embedded, and the writeup is pretty clear that it barely fits/works there, lots of caveats, etc.
Another thing to consider is that sqlite dynamically allocates memory. You typically want to avoid that in embedded. Everything is slow, memory is scarce. The sheer code size is also a issue.
Memory allocation isn’t that slow (in fact all the ram is SRAM which is typically quite fast), it’s just that you only have 256k-1M RAM in total. This means that any time you’re saving later by trying to fill space now ends up getting wasted when that memory needs to be reclaimed.
Though note you can define your own "Virtual File System" (VFS) for SQLite to use[1]. It might be a bit of an undertaking, but I think you could use that to run on just about anything with storage you control. (I haven't done it myself, just some research back in the day)
Out of interest, why are people so confident in Google when it comes to Go, yet every other day there's articles about how Google can't be trusted in related to Dart/Flutter which are soon to be abandoned?
I don't really know anything about Dart or Flutter, but they're entirely separate teams within a huge organisation. It's entirely possible that one team does an excellent job, whereas the other doesn't. I keep repeating this: but "Google" is not a monolithic entity. People aren't "confident in Google", they're "confident in the people working on Go" (or not: you can decide that for yourself).
Dart only found a real good use case fairly recently. Given its explosion in usage since then, I think it may very well be more popular that go in several years.
I get an early-UNIX / Bell-Labs vibe from the entire Go project. New Jersey all the way. The ecosystem is too sleek and practical to abandon. My 0.02€, ymmv.
New Jersey vs. what? I read about that phrase sometime earlier but forgot the rest of it. Is it vs. MIT / Stanford / West Coast / other? implying worse is better vs. other?
is it also related to neat vs. scruffy approaches in AI?
At any point in recent history, I would have been pretty happy sticking with the last release of go for quite some time. Flutter always feels like it's the next release that's going to be the good one.
the part of your sentence before the comma is not fully related to the part after it.
iow, the first part does not imply the second part.
a lang could have a trustworthy future for maintenance of existing apps, like in terms of support from vendors, while not being a very good choice for greenfield applications, due to not having modern language features and libraries.
but there is so much cobol in critical infrastructure in the world that I don't think it is going away anytime soon. Google for some relevant threads on hn about it.
there is a good chance that some services critically important to you and your family rely on software written in COBOL running on mainframes. just like for everyone else in the developed world and some of the developing world.
I struggled with understanding web frameworks, though I didn't struggle understanding the basics of plain JS, html, and CSS. CSS kind of just made sense for me.
In the end I settled on dart/flutter for frontend.
There's no catch! Flood is fully open-source and will remain free without subscriptions or closed-source paid modules.
Inspired by other open-source projects like https://ui.aceternity.com/, I'm developing Flood to contribute to the Flutter community and showcase what's possible. It serves as a strong portfolio piece and helps direct interested developers towards my freelancing company, JLogical, for consulting or custom development.
The goal is to create a win-win: the community gets a powerful, free tool, and it potentially leads to interesting projects or collaborations for us. But regardless, Flood will stay open and free.
Thanks for the reply. I'm really a beginner to dart/flutter. I found dart extremely easy to pick up but flutter has a steeper learning curve.
I'll definitely be checking this out, but think, similar to JavaScript and it's frameworks, learning the underlying technology first will give me a better insight into what this is doing.
You can skip ahead to his playful thesis > the universe emerging from the command line.
In his book The Life of the Cosmos, which everyone should read, Lee Smolin gives the best description I've ever read of how our universe emerged from an uncannily precise balancing of different fundamental constants. The mass of the proton, the strength of gravity, the range of the weak nuclear force, and a few dozen other fundamental constants completely determine what sort of universe will emerge from a Big Bang. If these values had been even slightly different, the universe would have been a vast ocean of tepid gas or a hot knot of plasma or some other basically uninteresting thing--a dud, in other words. The only way to get a universe that's not a dud--that has stars, heavy elements, planets, and life--is to get the basic numbers just right. If there were some machine, somewhere, that could spit out universes with randomly chosen values for their fundamental constants, then for every universe like ours it would produce 10^229 duds.
Though I haven't sat down and run the numbers on it, to me this seems comparable to the probability of making a Unix computer do something useful by logging into a tty and typing in command lines when you have forgotten all of the little options and keywords. Every time your right pinky slams that ENTER key, you are making another try. In some cases the operating system does nothing. In other cases it wipes out all of your files. In most cases it just gives you an error message. In other words, you get many duds. But sometimes, if you have it all just right, the computer grinds away for a while and then produces something like emacs. It actually generates complexity, which is Smolin's criterion for interestingness.
Not only that, but it's beginning to look as if, once you get below a certain size--way below the level of quarks, down into the realm of string theory--the universe can't be described very well by physics as it has been practiced since the days of Newton. If you look at a small enough scale, you see processes that look almost computational in nature.
I think that the message is very clear here: somewhere outside of and beyond our universe is an operating system, coded up over incalculable spans of time by some kind of hacker-demiurge. The cosmic operating system uses a command-line interface. It runs on something like a teletype, with lots of noise and heat; punched-out bits flutter down into its hopper like drifting stars. The demiurge sits at his teletype, pounding out one command line after another, specifying the values of fundamental constants of physics:
and when he's finished typing out the command line, his right pinky hesitates above the ENTER key for an aeon or two, wondering what's going to happen; then down it comes--and the WHACK you hear is another Big Bang.
I am just simply asking for the opinion of people who disagree with OP. I do not care about the down-vote per se, more so about the opinion of people who disagree indicated by the down-votes.
I suppose a side effect might be employee loyality, which might be a good thing. And the wealth disparity we have now is obscene. But all this is predicated on the company doing well, where's the story about the companies set up like this that struggle or fail? Are the employees worse off than those in a traditional company?
Wealth disparity is a function of overall worker comp, but it doesn't matter whether you force companies to pay part of that comp in shares instead of cash.
what the proposal for employee ownership _actually_ want to achieve is for the existing owners to have part of their ownership reliquished (without much, if any, compensation), and given to the workers.
AKA, the workers do not take on the prior capital risk that the owners have, but reap the rewards of success. Obviously, a failed company means no such shares given to the workers (by definition). Therefore, under this imagined scenario, the workers only gain.
Yes, that sounds closer to what the proposal seem to amount to.
But it doesn't make much sense: just because I work at Google (which is worth a lot per employee) I don't deserve more re-distribution than someone manning the cashier at eg WalMart.
If you want to re-distribute, I would suggest to tax the owners and hand money to the people, regardless of where they work.
I have used many open source notes taking apps. My goto used to be Zim Desktop Wiki [0] but its just a desktop app and the was no built in sync solution. On mobile I used Markor [1] which understood Zims syntax, as well as markdown.
Due to lack of mobile client and built in sync options I moved to Joplin [2]. Its markdown, cross platform, and i can sync with WebDav. People don't like that its SQLite based, but honestly worse com to worse your notes are an export away, or you can just open the database yourself. Im happy with it.
I always recommend Treesheets [3] though, excellent for brainstorming/rapid note taking.
It actually makes sense when you need more granular control while working with multiple people over multiple projects. I should pop these stuff on my homepage instead of calendar features. Thanks for your review.
I might be wrong but you'd need to install pandoc-crossref and add it as a filter in Zettlr, somewhere in the pandoc preferences. Then use pandoc-crossref's syntax on the equations.
