https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/rfcs/-/merge_requests/29#note_186477
国内高校镜像站反对 Archlinux RFC 29 草案的联署
tl;dr：该 RFC 草案为镜像站设置了许多不合理甚至不可能做到的要求，同时未解决任何现有问题。
国内高校镜像站反对 Archlinux RFC 29 草案的联署
tl;dr：该 RFC 草案为镜像站设置了许多不合理甚至不可能做到的要求，同时未解决任何现有问题。
Daniel Lemire's blog
Learning from the object-oriented mania
Back when I started programming professionally, every expert and every software engineering professor would swear by object-oriented programming. Resistance was futile. History had spoken: the future was object-oriented.
It is hard to understate how strong the mania was. In education, we started calling textbooks and videos ‘learning objects‘. Educators would soon ‘combine learning objects and reuse them‘.
A competitor to a client I was working on at the time had written a server in C. They had to pay lip service to object-oriented programming, so they said that their code was ‘object-oriented.
I once led a project to build an image compression system. They insisted that before we even wrote a single line of code, we planned it out using ‘UML’. It had to be object-oriented from the start, you see.
You had to know your object-oriented design patterns, or you could not be taken seriously.
People rewrote their database engines so that they would be object-oriented.
More than 25 years later, we can finally say, without needing much courage, that it was insane, outrageous, and terribly wasteful.
Yet, even today, the pressure remains on. Students are compelled to write simple projects using multiple classes. Not just learn the principles of object-oriented programming, which is fair enough, but we still demand that they embrace the ideology.
To be fair, some of the basic principles behind object-oriented programming can be useful. At least, you should know about them.
But the mania was unwarranted and harmful.
The lesson you should draw is not that object-oriented is bad, but rather that whatever is the current trendy technique and trendy idea, is likely grossly overrated.
The social mechanism is constantly in action, though it is no longer acting for object-oriented programming. It takes many forms. Not long ago, you had to wear a mask to attend a conference. Everyone ‘knew’ that masks stopped viruses and had no side-effect… just like everyone just knew that object-oriented programming makes better and more maintainable software, without negative side-effects.
You can recognize such a social contagion by its telltale signs.
1. Rapid Spread: A social contagion spreads quickly through a group or community, much like a wildfire. One day everyone is talking about the latest object-oriented pattern, and the next day, everyone is putting it into practice.
2. Amplification: You often observe the emergence of ‘influencers’, people who gain high social status and use their newly found position to push further the hype. The object-oriented mania was driven by many key players who made a fortune in the process. They appeared in popular shows, magazines, and so forth.
3. Peer Influence: Social contagion often relies on peer influence. E.g., everyone around you starts talking about object-oriented programming.
4. Conformity: People often mimic the behaviors or attitudes of others in their group, leading to a conformity effect. People who do not conform are often excluded, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, object-oriented started to appear in job ads and was promoted by government agencies.
5. Aggressive Behavior: You see a significant change from usual behavior as irrationality creeps in. If you criticize object-oriented programming, something is wrong with you!
6. Grandiose Beliefs or Delusions: Claims that object-oriented programming would forever change the software industry for the better were everywhere. You could just easily reuse your objects and classes from one project to the other. Never mind that none of these claims could ever be sustained.
7. Risky Behavior: Entire businesses bet their capital on projects trying to reinvent some established tool in an object-oriented manner. People kept throwing caution to the wind: let us rebuild everything the one true way, what is the worse that can happen?
source
Learning from the object-oriented mania
Back when I started programming professionally, every expert and every software engineering professor would swear by object-oriented programming. Resistance was futile. History had spoken: the future was object-oriented.
It is hard to understate how strong the mania was. In education, we started calling textbooks and videos ‘learning objects‘. Educators would soon ‘combine learning objects and reuse them‘.
A competitor to a client I was working on at the time had written a server in C. They had to pay lip service to object-oriented programming, so they said that their code was ‘object-oriented.
I once led a project to build an image compression system. They insisted that before we even wrote a single line of code, we planned it out using ‘UML’. It had to be object-oriented from the start, you see.
You had to know your object-oriented design patterns, or you could not be taken seriously.
People rewrote their database engines so that they would be object-oriented.
More than 25 years later, we can finally say, without needing much courage, that it was insane, outrageous, and terribly wasteful.
Yet, even today, the pressure remains on. Students are compelled to write simple projects using multiple classes. Not just learn the principles of object-oriented programming, which is fair enough, but we still demand that they embrace the ideology.
To be fair, some of the basic principles behind object-oriented programming can be useful. At least, you should know about them.
But the mania was unwarranted and harmful.
The lesson you should draw is not that object-oriented is bad, but rather that whatever is the current trendy technique and trendy idea, is likely grossly overrated.
The social mechanism is constantly in action, though it is no longer acting for object-oriented programming. It takes many forms. Not long ago, you had to wear a mask to attend a conference. Everyone ‘knew’ that masks stopped viruses and had no side-effect… just like everyone just knew that object-oriented programming makes better and more maintainable software, without negative side-effects.
You can recognize such a social contagion by its telltale signs.
1. Rapid Spread: A social contagion spreads quickly through a group or community, much like a wildfire. One day everyone is talking about the latest object-oriented pattern, and the next day, everyone is putting it into practice.
2. Amplification: You often observe the emergence of ‘influencers’, people who gain high social status and use their newly found position to push further the hype. The object-oriented mania was driven by many key players who made a fortune in the process. They appeared in popular shows, magazines, and so forth.
3. Peer Influence: Social contagion often relies on peer influence. E.g., everyone around you starts talking about object-oriented programming.
4. Conformity: People often mimic the behaviors or attitudes of others in their group, leading to a conformity effect. People who do not conform are often excluded, either explicitly or implicitly. For example, object-oriented started to appear in job ads and was promoted by government agencies.
5. Aggressive Behavior: You see a significant change from usual behavior as irrationality creeps in. If you criticize object-oriented programming, something is wrong with you!
6. Grandiose Beliefs or Delusions: Claims that object-oriented programming would forever change the software industry for the better were everywhere. You could just easily reuse your objects and classes from one project to the other. Never mind that none of these claims could ever be sustained.
7. Risky Behavior: Entire businesses bet their capital on projects trying to reinvent some established tool in an object-oriented manner. People kept throwing caution to the wind: let us rebuild everything the one true way, what is the worse that can happen?
source
Chips and Cheese
Meteor Lake’s E-Cores: Crestmont Makes Incremental Progress
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
Meteor Lake’s E-Cores: Crestmont Makes Incremental Progress
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
Daniel Lemire's blog
Peer review is not the gold standard in science
Peer review as we know it today was introduced very late, over a century after the scientific revolution. It happened after Einstein’s time… arguably the most productive era in science. Current scientists often equate a success with the publication in a selective peer-reviewed venue. But that was never the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is pre-scientific thinking. Back in Einstein’s time, many scientists believed in the ether. It would have been difficult to dismiss the ether as a concept. The prudent approach would have been to pay lip service to the ether. Similarly, most scientists believed in eugenics. They believed in forced sterilization for the greater good. Many of the racist laws in the US followed straight from progressive science. Opposing eugenics would have been difficult in the context of peer review. It would have been difficult to challenge eugenics openly as a scientists. Recently, people like Matt Ridley challenged the idea that the SARS-Cov2 virus originated from nature. Back when he published his book on the topic, it would have been difficult to pass peer review.
You may not remember, but early on, it would widely accepted that the lab origin of SARS-Cov2 was only for far-right conspiracy theorists. The Canadian State broadcaster (CBC) told us, in its ‘science’ section:
source
Peer review is not the gold standard in science
Peer review as we know it today was introduced very late, over a century after the scientific revolution. It happened after Einstein’s time… arguably the most productive era in science. Current scientists often equate a success with the publication in a selective peer-reviewed venue. But that was never the scientific paradigm. In fact, it is pre-scientific thinking. Back in Einstein’s time, many scientists believed in the ether. It would have been difficult to dismiss the ether as a concept. The prudent approach would have been to pay lip service to the ether. Similarly, most scientists believed in eugenics. They believed in forced sterilization for the greater good. Many of the racist laws in the US followed straight from progressive science. Opposing eugenics would have been difficult in the context of peer review. It would have been difficult to challenge eugenics openly as a scientists. Recently, people like Matt Ridley challenged the idea that the SARS-Cov2 virus originated from nature. Back when he published his book on the topic, it would have been difficult to pass peer review.
You may not remember, but early on, it would widely accepted that the lab origin of SARS-Cov2 was only for far-right conspiracy theorists. The Canadian State broadcaster (CBC) told us, in its ‘science’ section:
One of the most persistent and widespread pieces of disinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic has been the conspiracy theory that the novel coronavirus that causes the disease was created in a lab — and was let loose either by accident or on purpose by some nefarious actor.Remember: ‘The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.’
source
属于CYY自己的世界
Spacemit X60 (K1) SPECINT 2006 Benchmark
I ordered a BananaPi F3 last week and it arrived on May 6th. Using the opensbi and kernel compiled from armbian , replace the rootfs with archlinux.
Surprisely, I found this core has Zicond extension which was ratified in late 2023, then I also add this extension to compiler. As RISC-V vector support in gcc13.2 is not good, I used llvm 17 insted.
The result is shown below:
As an in-order micro-architecture, the result is normal, as I expect. It’s not so good compared to some other cores, such as T-Head C910, but the ISA extension is good for developers. It is an excellent device to come in 2024 for the RISC-V ecosystem, especially for RISC-V Vector software development. I have used it to benchmark my chacha20 RVV patch for openssl, and it has been merged today.
The raw result is at https://blog.cyyself.name/static/CINT2006.057.ref.html
source
(author: 陈泱宇)
Spacemit X60 (K1) SPECINT 2006 Benchmark
I ordered a BananaPi F3 last week and it arrived on May 6th. Using the opensbi and kernel compiled from armbian , replace the rootfs with archlinux.
Surprisely, I found this core has Zicond extension which was ratified in late 2023, then I also add this extension to compiler. As RISC-V vector support in gcc13.2 is not good, I used llvm 17 insted.
The result is shown below:
As an in-order micro-architecture, the result is normal, as I expect. It’s not so good compared to some other cores, such as T-Head C910, but the ISA extension is good for developers. It is an excellent device to come in 2024 for the RISC-V ecosystem, especially for RISC-V Vector software development. I have used it to benchmark my chacha20 RVV patch for openssl, and it has been merged today.
The raw result is at https://blog.cyyself.name/static/CINT2006.057.ref.html
source
(author: 陈泱宇)
Chips and Cheese
Inside the Snapdragon 855’s iGPU
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
Inside the Snapdragon 855’s iGPU
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
Chips and Cheese
Can China’s Loongson Catch Western Designs? Probably Not.
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
Can China’s Loongson Catch Western Designs? Probably Not.
#ChipAndCheese
Telegraph | source
(author: clamchowder)
有一些测试数据值得商榷，我觉得还是JamesAslan的靠谱一点。比如极客湾的8MB LLC容量，应该是没考虑temporal prefetcher。
