Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | criticalfault's commentslogin

I wonder if this could also work for (e)uv

Probably not because EUV gets absorbed incredibly quickly by anything other than vacuum. This is why it is created in low density gas, thin liquid or solid samples (high harmonic generation) or electron clouds (free electron laser).

I wondered this too - why are you being downvoted for asking?

All the difficulty to create that laser it seems fair enough to ask!


does ipv6 require Dual Stack Operation?

No, it doesn't. For example, many mobile networks are IPv6-only.

since you have a lot of experience, can I ask what do you think about this:

- skipping cmake completely? would this be feasible?

- integration of other languages in the project?

- how to handle qt?


> skipping cmake completely? would this be feasible?

Feasible but difficult. CMake has a tremendous user mass, so you do want to be able to use a CMake-based project as a dependency. The CMake Target/Config export system expose CMake internals and make that difficult to consume a CMake built project without CMake.

The cleanest way to do that is probably what xmake is doing: Calling cmake and extract targets information from CMake to your own build system with some scripting. It is flaky but xmake has proven it is doable.

That's said: CPS should make that easier on the longer term.

Please also consider that CMake is doing a lot of work under the hood to contains compiler quirks that you will have to do manually.

> integration of other languages in the project?

Trying to integrate higher level languages (Python, JS) in package managers of lower level languages (C, C++) is generally a bad idea.

The dependency relation is inverted and interoperability betweens package managers is always poor. Diamond dependency and conflicting versions will become quickly a problem.

I would advise to just expose properly your build system with the properties I described and use a multi-language package manager (e.g Nix) or, at default, the higher level language package manager (e.g uv with a scikit-build-core equivalent) on top of that.

This will be one order of magnitude easier to do.

> how to handle qt?

Qt is nothing special to handle.

Qt is a multi language framework (C++, MOC, QML, JS and even python for PySide) and need to be handle as such.


https://www.tb.pro/en-US/thundermail/

  Hosted Securely in Germany 

  Your emails are protected by strict EU privacy laws and hosted on infrastructure you can trust. With servers located in Germany, Thundermail prioritizes your privacy while ensuring reliable, fast delivery worldwide.


I don't see how it's different from Amazon or Microsoft datacenters in the EU, which are not safe from the US government. As long as the US parent company can somehow get at the data, it is obligated to do so when a US agency asks for it.


Looks like it's still owned by Mozilla/MZLA and thus subject to US jurisdiction.


It appears to belong to another subsidiary of Mozilla Foundation: MZFO GERMANY GMBH, which would be subject to German, not US, law.

take the reference of ladybird.

in a couple of years they built the engine from scratch. it's going to soon enter Alpha. how many people from ladybird built that engine? about 10?

all while everyone has said that modern web makes this task impossible


> it's going to soon enter Alpha

Perhaps other browser makers want to move faster than Ladybird.


that's fine.

point is that Mozilla is wasting money and having 4000 people working on chrome may not be the correct benchmark.


Wait why is that fine? The whole point was that ladybird is yet to enter alpha which is the very reason why it's not the correct benchmark. And you said the Chrome comparison isn't the correct one but... didn't follow it up with an actual reason.


I meant it's fine for others to want to move faster and hire more people (like Google). just replying to your sentence. it's fine for others to want things different...

About ladybird, I think it is quite a good benchmark:

- they have accomplished a task many thought impossible in the modern world

- they accomplished it while having a handful of people

- they had a fraction of resources compared to both google and Mozilla. only about a year ago they had few hundred of thousands as support money to get them started.

The engine may not be finished yet. may not be as performant as the other two. but they did a 3rd engine. and given 10% of the budget Mozilla has, they would progress much more. Ladybird Team has shown how everything about Mozilla is mismanaged and simply broken.


we were also sad. still the browser I ever used.

but, maybe the company didn't adjust well? maybe it was a bad time to do this, but ladybird is not a big company and they seem to be progressing well.


I didn't really follow opera since Chinese buyout and migration to blink.

any real proof for the Chinese spyware statement? is it really bad?

is it better than Google spyware?


if you would say you are writing about zed, I'd think you were writing about vscode.

I can't believe the latency of browser based editor is acceptable to people


*wouldn't have said


> I would rather the web was based on a statically typed language that had better error handling practices like Go.

So, dart?

Back in the day Google had plans to make a dart VM in Chrome, but powers that be didn't like this idea.

So here we are. it's 2026 and the web is still limited to one language. Dare I say the only area where we don't have alternatives.


There are other areas.

Embedded development, high critical systems, mobile platforms (the choice isn't really there), game consoles.

It is mostly C or C++, Swift/Objective-C, Java/Kotlin.

There are other alternatives you might want to point out, notice however they need integration layers, leaky ones, some yak shaving not much different than targeting WebAssembly, and still having to talk to JavaScript.


if you say apple allows only one language, it may be true. you don't have alternatives. but you can change platforms.

there is no alternative to the web and within the web there are no alternative languages.

for embedded, you have options, no? and I don't mean glue: rust. quick Google says Ada and assembly.


The options for embedded are similar to asserting WebAssembly is an option to JavaScript.

Assembly is not an option per se, some embedded devices like PIC, usually still have to be written in Assembly.

Yes you might have Rust, Ada, Pascal, Basic as alternative, however the choice only goes as far as the CPU vendor SDK supports alternative toolchains, or the whole certification process allows for a choice (hence why Ferrocene exists now).

So if in the end you still have an option to go outside the trailed path, it usually means yak shaving to make your toolchain work on the target, or have bindings to the official SDK, instead of actually solving the problem, had you started with the official SDK languages.


webassembly is not an alternative to Js. if someone else said it, fine, but I didn't.

the reason why I didnt is because I despise JavaScript and was hoping that webassembly would give an alternative. which never became an alternative.

with embedded you are arguing for my point. you say sometimes there are alternatives (maybe depending on the platform). sometimes not. you can change platforms as well. that's fine. sometimes is very much different from none. and we have none for the web.


well written

would really be happy to have had these explanations before I had to figure it out for myself.

then you have these guys who reached the next level

https://www.dns.toys/


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: