Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Activity for Andreas
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edit | Post #294291 |
Post edited: Add documentation links for each of the two functions |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #294291 | Initial revision | — | about 1 year ago |
| Question | — |
How does the GLFW time acquirement function differ from Java’s built-in time getters? `glfwGetTime()` and `System.nanoTime()` both claim to provide precision-based time interval management based on the host platform’s highest resolution and accuracy clock. Naturally, I will only use one of them, so which one should I rely on? How do they differ, and how do their differe... (more) |
— | about 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294092 |
Ah, hidden magic. That's lovely. Great option for a simple and concise API. Way worse to make somebody understand how things work. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294076 |
Let's say you _did_ use a native library to forcibly overwrite the class header of the object by overwriting the memory address, would that work? No idea. Possibly, but seems unreliable, especially long term. The garbage collectors and other JVM components rely on the object header, and the non-c... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294076 |
And all that is without mentioning that the JVM is free to organize class data as it sees fit. Two seemingly identical classes _could_ have a different layout, with fields rearranged. I don't think the specification mandates a certain way to lay out classes. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294076 |
Once the FFM API receives [record mappers](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8308968), a much quicker solution would be to just go via a `MemorySegment`. That would achieve pretty much the same as this answer, with more clarity, less overhead, more optimizations, but the same limitations.
T... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #294092 |
Post edited: Simple grammar and code block language |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294092 |
Perhaps the library manages state for you with global variables and singletons, similar to how some libraries have `getContext` and `setContext` functions, where every action done is through the use of a static function that doesn't accept any context argument, but instead uses the thread-local s... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #294092 |
Suggested edit: Simple grammar and code block language (more) |
helpful | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #294061 |
[Power Users CD](https://powerusers.codidact.com/) or [Linux Systems CD](https://linux.codidact.com/) (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293967 |
Your first section is meta-commentary for Olin’s answer. It belongs in a comment under his answer, not as a preface to this post. Additionally, the first paragraph in your second section doesn’t need to reiterate on that. (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293965 |
The topic of a post doesn't necessarily speak to its qualifications in terms of the scope of the site. For example a post qualifies due to its topic, but is rendered impractical because its scope is too wide. That's worth keeping in mind when considering whether or not both concepts need a distin... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293642 |
Post edited: The bug report is not about questions whose topic mainly concerns the early stages of learning a field, but about actions made by new users on Codidact; thus it concerns the ability system, at least in this particular case. |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #293642 |
Suggested edit: The bug report is not about questions whose topic mainly concerns the early stages of learning a field, but about actions made by new users on Codidact; thus it concerns the ability system, at least in this particular case. (more) |
helpful | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293550 |
For the most part, along with the reasoning behind it, I agree with your answer, thus I've upvoted it. However, your premise laid out in the first paragraph, isn't universal to all spammers. It does apply in this particular case, but there are many instances of spam from otherwise good contributo... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Edit | Post #293533 | Initial revision | — | over 1 year ago |
| Answer | — |
A: How to handle correct answers that also include spam? It's a mistake to draw a general question based on this specific incident. The spam in question has been posted to Codidact dozens of times, often in AI-generated texts. There is no reason to assume there was any good faith behind the answer. We know the "answer" part of the post, the one you'... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293312 |
Ideally, the process of getting titled as a moderator is as much a decision that belongs in the community as a whole. An election might be the correct course of action, however, after 15 years at SE, we have seen some limitations and important drawbacks with the obvious answer to community democr... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293312 |
There's not a whole lot of information in the post in regards to how one or multiple new moderators are selected from the nominees, nor the process for how and when that happens. I'm assuming it would be a decision weighted by the staff team at Codidact, which it nonetheless should be, as the sta... (more) |
— | over 1 year ago |
| Comment | Post #293072 |
With this in mind, I don't the think the question really lives up to the standards as of now. The answer still seems useful, though, just for a different question. The question in its current form needs an overhaul; rather large one. Potentially split it into two: one Q/A for the explanation for ... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292968 |
Post edited: Remove the mention of Python; it's an irrelevant specificity, and mostly adds confusion to the question. |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292968 |
Suggested edit: Remove the mention of Python; it's an irrelevant specificity, and mostly adds confusion to the question. (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292983 |
Post edited: Remove unncessary parts, focus and simplify the question, reorder code to the bottom for better flow |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292922 |
Post edited: Remove fluff and minor writing improvements. The question still needs a bigger cleanup or rewrite. |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292953 |
Post edited: Remove tag from title |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292983 |
Suggested edit: Remove unncessary parts, focus and simplify the question, reorder code to the bottom for better flow (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292922 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff and minor writing improvements. The question still needs a bigger cleanup or rewrite. (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292953 |
Suggested edit: Remove tag from title (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #278914 |
Just make sure you don't plagiarize the question. Besides, if you do this often enough, it may seem like you are stealing questions from SO, which doesn't exactly lead to a good reputation. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292695 |
Post edited: Remove meta commentary. Such belongs in a comment or close flag instead. |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292701 |
Post edited: Remove fluff |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292694 |
Post edited: Remove fluff, remove non-constrained limitation (wasn’t real anyway) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292701 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292695 |
Suggested edit: Remove meta commentary. Such belongs in a comment or close flag instead. (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292694 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff, remove non-constrained limitation (wasn’t real anyway) (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292715 |
Flag one of the posts. (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292715 | Initial revision | — | almost 2 years ago |
| Answer | — |
A: What is the difference between `back-end` and `backend` tags? Quite obviously, these are the same. The name of the two is literally the same except for a hyphen. They only have one question each. Looking at the questions, they are indeed used for the same purpose. Both have tag descriptions that are mostly similar. Why somebody decided to write descriptions... (more) |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #284872 |
Post edited: Seemed as if the list was going to explain why using text is good, yet it explains why using images is bad. |
— | almost 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #284872 |
Suggested edit: Seemed as if the list was going to explain why using text is good, yet it explains why using images is bad. (more) |
helpful | almost 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292286 |
Post edited: Remove fluff (for the future, you might as well put that statement in a comment, or simply omit it) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Suggested Edit | Post #292286 |
Suggested edit: Remove fluff (for the future, you might as well put that statement in a comment, or simply omit it) (more) |
helpful | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292230 |
Based on what I can find about Joe-E, that remains purely a theoretical scenario, not a real one. Standard Java _is not_ capability-safe, so I in that context, I'm not sure if this really answers it. I do like the mention of an import whitelist, though. I can't see anything else in OpenJDK these ... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292219 |
But it isn’t really obscurity, is it? The Java bytecode for the object is available, and that can be decompiled and inspected.
JEP 401, being part of Valhalla, is generally written by the most experienced JDK developers, with deep knowledge of the JVM. Surely they wouldn’t get such a basic mi... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292219 |
Post edited: |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Edit | Post #292219 | Initial revision | — | about 2 years ago |
| Question | — |
Why does a lack of object encapsulation constitute a security breach? In the current version of OpenJDK's JEP 401: Value Classes and Objects (Preview), it is said that value classes can leak data stored in their fields, and that this is potentially a security concern. Quoting the two parts: > - The ability to compare value objects' fields means that a value obj... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292128 |
Yes, I originally posted the answer on Stack Overflow. I don’t think it’s a great solution to the underlying issue there, though. I did consider posting a variation of that underlying issue here, but didn’t get that far yet.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/60123319/7395227
(more) |
— | about 2 years ago |
| Comment | Post #292135 |
It’s not so much about me not wanting exactly Git questions everywhere, I just strongly support limiting topics to as few communities as possible. Overlap isn’t good.
Now, for Git specifically, that is something I’d expect to find on Software Development, so seeing such questions in other com... (more) |
— | about 2 years ago |