** UnhandledExceptionEventHandler :: OFFICIAL LC / CHATTER THREAD ** - Page 870 - Computer Technical Help

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Computer and Technical Help

** UnhandledExceptionEventHandler :: OFFICIAL LC / CHATTER THREAD **

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 870 of 1603

First

370 670 770 820 850 860 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 880 890 920 970 1070 1370

Last

Page 870 of 1603

First

370 670 770 820 850 860 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 880 890 920 970 1070 1370

Last

01-03-2016 , 05:19 PM

#21726

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

Either you're misunderstanding or I never thought about it from that perspective.

Say FileZilla offers binaries or an exe. I want to run the program. Why download and compile the binaries if I can just run an exe?

Thinking about it purely from a user point of view, but maybe that's not who binaries are targeted at.

Quote

150% up to $2,000 Welcome Bonus on CoinPoker

Join the action now

Daily Rewards ? Splash Pots ? CoinRaces

01-03-2016 , 06:43 PM

#21727

fruit snacks

centurion

Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 173

I think in the gentoo distribution of linux you compile everything yourself. The benefits are you can pass flags and set options and there are probably scripts that optimize the build for your specific machine.

I have a vague memory of compiling vim with some flag to get some plugin to work. I compiled nodejs on a free ec2 instance once and it took like 3 hours because of the limits they imposed on the free server.

Quote

01-03-2016 , 07:30 PM

#21728

Loki

binary duo

Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 12,772

That sounds horrible.

Quote

01-03-2016 , 09:21 PM

#21729

SmileyEH

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 8,049

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

That sounds horrible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

"Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design."

Quote

01-03-2016 , 09:47 PM

#21730

just_grindin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,263

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnolds

I never really understood this. Presumably, the attacker wuold need to be able to run code on the router itself, right? Do routers provide execution environments? Seems like a pretty dangerous feature to allow arbitrary code to be executed on the router.

Well I'm not sure what you mean. A router at its heart is a specialized computer. The flaws take advantage of being able to execute arbitrary code on this specialized pc.

Even if that weren't the case routers execute other code for administration that likely runs on a more general computer separate from the asic which would allow for execution of code. I could be wrong though, my level of knowledge of the construction and operation of routers is limited.

Quote

01-03-2016 , 10:23 PM

#21731

arnolds

stranger

Join Date: Apr 2014 Posts: 12

Quote:

Originally Posted by just_grindin

I guess it's just my lack of knowledge wrt routers or probably just specialized computers. Didn't know it was possible to start up something like a terminal or some other method to execute code. I assumed that through compromising the router, attackers gain access to some computer on the network

Quote

01-04-2016 , 01:24 AM

#21732

Barrin6

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 6,948

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

I love how you used FileZilla as an example considering how it is bundled with adware when downloading from Sourceforge.

From a user's standpoint, there is very little point in compiling the binaries yourself. For some programs, compiling can take hours like the firefox browser. The only reason I can think of, from the user's point of view is that the user wants the bleeding edge version of some open source software, where no binaries are available. But even then, that's rare, since most open source orgs have a nightly binary that you could download.

Unless you are a developer, there's very little reason to compile it yourself.

Quote

01-04-2016 , 02:14 AM

#21733

_dave_

_Pooh_Bah_

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,154

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noodle Wazlib

Say FileZilla offers binaries or an exe.

Also a nitpick - an .exe is a binary. If you're seeing both "binaries or .exe", then that's binaries for other OS. and a binary for windows (.exe). What you mean is "offering binaries or source", I should think.

And yeah, you would download the source and compile it if you are a developer and wanted to make edits mostly. You may download the binary to run it and download the source just to look, too. Or (gentoo style) you may be trying to find performance improvements compiling your own binaries specific to your system. Maybe you're a security researcher and want to check a compile of the source actually outputs the same binary they claim it does (there are indeed some people who sift through every line of the source code!).

Quote

01-04-2016 , 08:27 AM

#21734

just_grindin

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,263

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnolds

It looks like mostly used for ddos and scanning for other routers to infect so mostly just leveraging what routers already do well but for malicious purposes:

http://krebsonsecurity.com/2015/01/l...-home-routers/

Quote

01-05-2016 , 06:31 AM

#21735

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Article on Angular 2 vs React

The author prefers React, clearly. I can definitely see the advantage of syntax checking in JSX, I think that's great. Unmentioned are the advantages of templating in markup (semantic clarity, designers can write the markup, etc).

Couple of quotes from the article I think are important:

Quote:

Choosing between Angular and React is like choosing between buying an off-the-shelf computer and building your own with off-the-shelf parts.

Quote:

React Embraces the Unix Philosophy.

React is a library. It’s precisely the opposite philosophy of large, comprehensive frameworks like Angular and Ember. So when you select React, you’re free to choose modern best-of-breed libraries that solve your problem best. JavaScript moves fast, and React allows you to swap out small pieces of your application for better libraries instead of waiting around and hoping your framework will innovate.
Unix has stood the test of time. Here’s why:

The philosophy of small, composable, single-purpose tools never goes out of style.

This is what it comes down to, whether this is a blessing or a curse. The example of Unix doesn't seem relevant. Unix is an OS, not a programming language. The current most popular programming language, Java, gained superiority via standardization. Same for C and C++ in their day. Languages that allow infinite customizability - like Common Lisp - tend to lack sufficient prescriptiveness to allow them to become standards.

That said, I'm not sure that React is in that category. The similarity of structure afforded by the Flux architecture may allow it to prevail. Not having written anything in React yet, I'm not exactly an expert.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 06:34 AM

#21736

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Good comment here:

Quote:

With React, you typically pull a number of other libraries off the shelf to build a real app. This won’t seem like a big deal to most at first. But give it 5 years or more, and you have to deal with the divergence of the libraries you choose. They will have a different cadence of updates. The integration you do today, won’t work out the same years down the road, and you will need to do integration testing on at least the union of security…

That's the problem. Having freedom of choice on what libraries to use to do stuff seems great when building apps, but it can become a maintainability nightmare.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 06:40 AM

#21737

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

btw, I'd say the complaint of most people using Java has not been being straightjacketed into frameworks, but rather the plethora of random architectural stuff that comes and goes. Much like JavaScript. I think that's telling.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 08:39 AM

#21738

clowntable

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 45,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

The example of Unix doesn't seem relevant. Unix is an OS, not a programming language.

"The Unix Philosophy" is a standalone phrase independent of the OS imo. You could rename it the "build stuff out of dedicated components that do one thing philosophy" but that's too long. Or I guess "Philosophy of Composability"

Quote

01-05-2016 , 09:31 AM

#21739

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

Reach, Angular, Knockout, etc, are all under 5 years old. I don't think JS has a long-viewed community.

CLOS (Common Lisp Object System) has been pretty much unchanged since the 80s. Lots of reasons Lisp never became the size of Java, C#, etc, but having a plethora of inconsistent, diverting, and poorly maintained libraries is definitely not one of those reasons.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 09:54 AM

#21740

Grue

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,667

Knockout and Angular are from ~2009 IIRC.

I more or less agree with the poster of that article. I do not like abstraction and framework lock. Stuff like this in angular

Code:

<ul>
  <li *ngFor="#hero of heroes">
    {{hero.name}}
  </li>
</ul>

is complete garbage. Are you kidding me? What does this have to do with JavaScript?

My only concern about React is the lack of a 1.0 roadmap and some unfathomably stupid decisions in JSX. I wrote this lovely piece of code recently.

Code:

let reactDoesntAllowMeToPutClassNameLogicInJSXForNoReason = (num) => {
    return `element element${num}`;
};

return _.range(1, 11).map((num) => { 
    return (
        <div key={num} onClick={this.handleClick.bind(this)} className={reactDoesntAllowMeToPutClassNameLogicInJSXForNoReason(num)}>
    );
});

and I have crap like this everywhere. Gee who would have thought you'll need different classes for elements? IDK I still very much enjoy working with React more than any other similar thing. My favorite piece of tooling I've seen in a long time.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 10:38 AM

#21741

gaming_mouse

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 13,786

Grue,

Not sure I follow your issue. What is that you want to be able to write that React isn't letting you write?

Quote

01-05-2016 , 10:41 AM

#21742

gaming_mouse

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 13,786

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Isn't the big complaint with Java usually its unnecessary verboseness? The boilerplate that surrounds the simplest things. I assume the support for lambdas is an improvement, but the problem remains in many other ways...

Quote

01-05-2016 , 10:57 AM

#21743

Grue

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,667

The point is that for unknown reasons JSX doesn't allow escaping inside of html attributes so everything needs to be abstracted to functions such as the above. Its not too bad since its scoped to the render function but still unnecessary. Also dumb is the pointless deviations from html such as "className" "defaultChecked" and so on and also things like unclosed tags are not allowed. Its all being regexed the **** out I'd assume so why bother?

Quote

01-05-2016 , 10:59 AM

#21744

jjshabado

Carpal Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 22,732

The big complaint is definitely verboseness.

The library complaint doesn't really resonate with me. Yeah, dependency management totally sucks. But having lots of libraries seems to be a consequence of something popular - and lots of options for lots of features seems better than having only one (or no) options for a particular feature. You can always write stuff yourself if you don't want to maintain many different libraries...

In practice I also don't think "But give it 5 years or more, and you have to deal with the divergence of the libraries you choose" is a frequent problem. Generally, you're either actively working on something and upgrading as you go or the old libraries are fine because nothing is changing.

Quote

01-05-2016 , 11:13 AM

#21745

clowntable

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 45,557

Quote:

Originally Posted by gaming_mouse

Too engineered/comiteee/enterprisy I'd say (the verboseness plays into it). I like Java 8 quite a bit and you can actually run fairly lean with Java these days. There's a couple of light weight Flask-like web frameworks that don't require reading 1500 pages of enterprise java beans documentation for example (http://sparkjava.com/ etc.).

Quote

01-05-2016 , 11:33 AM

#21746

fruit snacks

centurion

Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 173

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grue

Also dumb is the pointless deviations from html such as "className"

This isn't jsx's fault. The dom named that property className to avoid the use of the word 'class' which is a reserved keyword in javascript.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/...ment/className

Quote

01-05-2016 , 05:52 PM

#21747

SmileyEH

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 8,049

Quote:

The point is that for unknown reasons JSX doesn't allow escaping inside of html attributes so everything needs to be abstracted to functions such as the above.

I'm not sure I follow. This is straight out of a course I am taking on Udemy:

Code:

<div className={"content " + (this.state.loaded ? "loaded" : "")}>

Quote

01-05-2016 , 06:49 PM

#21748

daveT

S.A.G.E. Master

Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 23,955

Why is requiring closing tags a bad thing?

Quote

01-05-2016 , 07:04 PM

#21749

Grue

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,667

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmileyEH

I'm not sure I follow. This is straight out of a course I am taking on Udemy:

Code:

<div className={"content " + (this.state.loaded ? "loaded" : "")}>

Fair enough and you can use IIFEs which is what I should be doing I guess just a little silly. btw I'd be pretty cautious about taking a course now that doesn't use ES2015 (template strings).

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveT

Why is requiring closing tags a bad thing?

nevermind I did a little more research and apparently even self closing tags like input just need to have the slash. <input> is not valid in JSX but is perfectly valid HTML5.

And to the "class" keyword thing I don't think thats it - it just throws a react warning. And whats up with "defaultChecked"?

Quote

01-05-2016 , 08:18 PM

#21750

Larry Legend

Celtic Pride

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 42,243

Twitter switching to 10k character limit seems like an incredibly good idea at first thought.

If they keep their promises to the developer ecosystem, then you have full page well embedded content that loads in an app.

Roll out verification system to public with personal info to hand over.

What is not to love for advertisers?