Reproducing copyright-protected information is "trivial" with image (or text) generation, but hard with code generation.
(from listening a lot to artists, so might have some bias). I haven't actually attempted either ... I find the code generation not very useful and the artistic structures interesting, but something's missing.
Speaking as a CS/Math dual major from the late 1980s, the explanations in the textbook were ... uselessly bad where I went (SFU). So while I know the math involved, I didn't know the terms until I retook it from a teacher who actually taught worth anything, years later.
(I still don't use the terms, they're not very ... well, they're awkward and while my embedded work sometimes calls for the math, the terms ... meh. There are clearer ways to put things!).
This one's easy : v2g with plug-n-charge needs full crypto including some levels of validation (but not others, it's in the specs), as well as infrastructure for organizing certificates, and support for a good IPv6 networking stack (stack is IPv6 only). Wireless support with WPA3/Enterprise is also essential.
I mean it's doable on some embedded platforms, but it's still a pretty large stack of requirements.
There's an additional gotcha that all the prototypes are either java or python. Doesn't seem like any of the others (rust, C) have completely caught up with handling the data and EXI layers. (embedded XML).
I tried repeatedly to use a "magic mouse" for work. I think if your UI only needs one mouse button and an occasionally inconsistent mouse wheel, you'd be fine. It has a long battery life, a not bad weight and works consistently in just web browsers.
Given that none of that has anything to do with my workflow usually, I don't use one anymore.
Have you tried adjusting the Mouse settings? You can certainly enable right-click.
The multitouch gestures + inertial scrolling is actually quite magical compared to a dumb fixed-offset scrollwheel, but the mouse itself is not the most ergonomic.
yeah. I'm sorry to say but "it doesn't work for me". Part of it may be that my hands are too large for the sensitivity needed. Besides, I work often enough with software that requires 3+ mouse buttons (Unix!) that any restricted or inconsistently touchy interface (literally in this case) goes.
If it can run X11 on a directly connected display, it's probably not embedded spaces ;). Don't take this comment too seriously, however raspberry pi is definitely at the "more desktop-like" end of the embedding pool.
As for systemd, it's an interesting set of tools, and one can if one wishes pick which ones are active in a system, if that system is complex enough to be running Linux (or other compatible OS) to begin with.
CAN bus is in many ways too difficult to encrypt. (not that it can't be, it's just got way too small a packet size). Nothing prevents manufacturers from getting complicated though - eg "knock three times on this ID, then request info from this ID then .....". (example from an old Shadowrun netrunning campaign idea)
I'm working in EV charging domain. EV chargers that comply with ISO 15118-20 may prove difficult to get working once more (due to key signature requirements). Otherwise, all should continue working as long as the charging protocol they use continues to be supported. And that said, the EV charge managing component should be replaceable.
(silly answer) use Visual C++. I've been coding across MacOS, Linux, and Windows 11, with roughly comparable machines in a lot of ways (all Intel). Visual C++ while awkward for compatibility - is very very fast for builds, and not bad for IDE interface for rapid fixes.
More serious - I moved to CMake presets and with that came a lot of cache optimization - including parallel builds. MacOS is now almost as fast as Windows for build, and Linux/gcc not far behind. Windows C++ seems to have the lowest modern feature compatibility, followed by MacOS/Clang, with Linux/recent GCC being the most complex. A lot of the newer features seem to add a lot to the build time..
... mind I've been working with C++ only for the last few months, and C for many years before, so consider it a beginner post in a lot of ways. Still, it was interesting to explore, and I'll be continuing to explore - I haven't yet enabled ccache for instance which I suspect will improve a lot.
My experience is the exact opposite. Moving a multimillion line C++ code base from msbuild to CMake/ninja on Windows cut the build time in half.
Chrome got even better speedups I believe by building with clang/ninja on Windows.
Bazel is where the real benefits lie by reusing other people's (or CI machine's) partial build artifacts via a centralized cache and by avoiding to run tests that are not affected by code changes.
Seems it has the necessary integration points to run CMake builds as an external command. The same way you could build Make, Autotools, Meson or Bazel projects from CMake with the necessary external command plumbings.
Obviously both fille the same purpose of being a build system, though Bazel is also a build executor not just a generator. Integration would mean either adding BUILD language support to CMake or vice-versa, but you wouldn't get the particular benefits of either this way.
(from listening a lot to artists, so might have some bias). I haven't actually attempted either ... I find the code generation not very useful and the artistic structures interesting, but something's missing.
reply