HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
hal9000xp
euclid
C2014–2017
hal9000xp / euclid

euclid

An event-driven framework

3Distinct people
4Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
105GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

An event-driven framework

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:56:07 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year4 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2014-05-07 20:36:46 UTC to 2017-10-15 12:52:20 UTC.

01232014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments20142015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20152016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2017

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
I've been pure C developer for 5+ years (worked with codebase of ~2.5 million lines of code) and I took a quick look (just out of curiosity) at the content and one thing immediately strikes me: http://cs.yale.edu/homes/aspnes/classes/223/notes.html#What.... 7.1 What's wrong with C a) C doesn't have a garbage collector Disagree that's it's wrong. If you code is well structured, then it's no big problem to avoid memory leaks. On top of that, you can use RAII if you are willing to use C-extensions like this one: https://lwn.net/Articles/589433/ Garbage collector just helps you to write semi-workable messy code (a dream of industrial developers). b) C doesn't support any kind of polymorphism If you use type cast in well structured code, it's no big problem. c) C doesn't have exceptions This may be a bit tricky but you still can use exceptions
Read the rest
in C using longjmp/setjmp: http://www.di.unipi.it/~nids/docs/longjump_try_trow_catch.ht... Although __cleanup__ extension doesn't work in this case. It's worth to take a look at this stack unwinding library: http://www.nongnu.org/libunwind/ Quote: With libunwind, it is possible to implement an extremely efficient version of setjmp(). Effectively, the only context that needs to be saved consists of the stack-pointer(s). In general, if you look at C as a high level assembler and willing to write or use existing low-level framework for "meta-language" primitives (like pointer virtualization), then you can write nice programs in your "meta-language". For example, I wrote some project for fun using pure C with bare minimum libraries. And I needed to make sure that I could detect the following bug as soon as possible: 1. Object X is created and owned by some code OWNER_X; 2. Pointer to this object X is passed to some code USER_OF_X; 3. Object X is freed in OWNER_X; 4. New object Y is created in OWNER_X which happens to have the same address as recently freed object X; 5. Because of some bug USER_OF_X still uses pointer to object X; I wanted USER_OF_X to fail on asserts as soon as possible if this happens. It would be hasty bug and hard to detect in unprepared code if X and Y happens to be the same type. When people are saying that it's nearly impossible to detect such bugs in C, they just don't consider using framework which cleverly detects this issue. By the way, this is my implementation pointer virtualization which helps to detect this sorts of bugs: https://github.com/hal9000xp/euclid/blob/master/core/main.h Look at PTRID. https://github.com/hal9000xp/euclid/blob/master/core/linked_... Look at usage of PTRID in LL_CHECK This is how I use them together: https://github.com/hal9000xp/euclid/blob/master/core/network...
In Notes on Data Structures and Programming Techniques

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.