On 2024-05-26 07:14 UTC, Lorenz (xha) wrote:

> On Sat, May 25, 2024 at 07:16:46PM +0000, Jose Lombera wrote:
> > Hi Max,
> > 
> > Thanks for taking this over.
> > 
> > I'm no longer following hare-dev, nor have time to review this patch nor
> > the changes you made on top of my original patch.  As such, I don't feel
> > comfortable appearing as the author of this version (which I presume is
> > what will finally be merged upstream).  Please add yourself as author
> > instead and remove my "Signed-off-by:".  Maybe just mention me as
> > "Co-authored-by:" and reference my original patch[1] with "Link:" or
> > something.

Hi Max,

Thanks for taking this over.

I'm no longer following hare-dev, nor have time to review this patch nor
the changes you made on top of my original patch.  As such, I don't feel
comfortable appearing as the author of this version (which I presume is
what will finally be merged upstream).  Please add yourself as author
instead and remove my "Signed-off-by:".  Maybe just mention me as
"Co-authored-by:" and reference my original patch[1] with "Link:" or
something.

Thanks,
Lombera

Yes.  I misunderstood and assumed the _binaries_ were meant to fit in a
floppy disk.  They were so small that this assumption made sense to me.

On 2024-02-21 00:32 UTC, Sebastian wrote:

> On Wed Feb 21, 2024 at 12:12 AM EST, Jose Lombera wrote:
> > On 2024-02-21 05:03 UTC, Ember Sawady wrote:
> >
> > > the thing to check for size would be qbe + harec + hare sources (without
> > > the repo history)
> >
> > Yeah, that is worse:
> >
> > $ du -shc /usr/local/bin/{qbe,harec,hare} /usr/local/src/hare/stdlib/
> > 552K    /usr/local/bin/qbe
> > 664K    /usr/local/bin/harec
> > 1.6M    /usr/local/bin/hare

On 2024-02-21 05:19 UTC, Ember Sawady wrote:

> hm, yeah. that's not quite what i was thinking of measuring, but i still
> came up with ~8mb for checkouts of ~sircmpwn/harec, ~sircmpwn/hare, and
> the qbe git repo.

Yeah, I realized I misunderstood you.  Compressed archives of the
sources still fit in a floppy:

$ du -sch qbe-1.2.tar.gz harec-0.24.0.tar.gz hare-0.24.0.tar.gz 
356K    qbe-1.2.tar.gz
192K    harec-0.24.0.tar.gz
752K    hare-0.24.0.tar.gz
1.3M    total

On 2024-02-21 05:03 UTC, Ember Sawady wrote:

> the thing to check for size would be qbe + harec + hare sources (without
> the repo history)

Yeah, that is worse:

$ du -shc /usr/local/bin/{qbe,harec,hare} /usr/local/src/hare/stdlib/
552K    /usr/local/bin/qbe
664K    /usr/local/bin/harec
1.6M    /usr/local/bin/hare
5.5M    /usr/local/src/hare/stdlib/
8.3M    total

qbe v1.2
harec 0.24.0
gcc 13.2.0 (Debian/Linux x86_64)

$ .bin/hare version
hare 0.24.0

$ ls -sh .bin/hare
1.6M .bin/hare

(compiled using the vanilla configs/linux.mk)

On Thu Nov 9, 2023 at 13:27 CST, Ember Sawady wrote:

> On Thu Nov 9, 2023 at 5:58 PM UTC, Jose Lombera wrote:
> >
> > On Thu Nov 9, 2023 at 06:18 CST, Curtis Arthaud wrote:
> >
> > > Of course, it's a WIP, so there are rough edges and
> > > performance is sometimes lacking
> > > (eg reading lines from a buffered file is slower than in Go),
> >
> > That's probably a bug[1] whose fix was never merged[2].  I think the
> > underlying code was refactored a while back and they inherited the bug.
> > You can try the test case presented in that patch, the issue it's still

On Thu Nov 9, 2023 at 06:18 CST, Curtis Arthaud wrote:

> Of course, it's a WIP, so there are rough edges and
> performance is sometimes lacking
> (eg reading lines from a buffered file is slower than in Go),

That's probably a bug[1] whose fix was never merged[2].  I think the
underlying code was refactored a while back and they inherited the bug.
You can try the test case presented in that patch, the issue it's still
observable with current HEAD hare.  It seems to be even worse with the
new implementation:

$ time ./newlines l.txt

On 2023-04-19 10:55 UTC, Drew DeVault wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> To git@git.sr.ht:~sircmpwn/hare
>    b76e834c..b0806f69  master -> master

It seems this patch was not applied (??)