Ah, yes: weaponizing cybersecurity requirements to trick - I mean “motivate” - higher management to do things “right.”

My thought as well, but those stones were shaped to match each other, reducing the amount of grout needed. It just goes to show the old ways still work, but you have to commit.

This is a dangerous metaphor. Remove the old wall and it turns out the new beautiful wall was leaning against and supported by it.

I get what you mean, it’s just that the metaphor could support both perspectives.

Surely through an intermediate - real - language?

I’ve said this before only to hear “we don’t have time to set that up and agree on a common style” and “that’s team B’s responsibility since we’re contributing to their code base.” Guess what kind of issue we kept wasting time on?

There are a couple of takeaways here. I think the main one is acknowledging that many technical problems are deeply human problems and the existence of a technical solution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t apply the human solution as well.

And here I was saying using git in the command line instead of a visual form might make me an elitist.

I’ve been living life on easy mode and not putting real care into my work.

It’s really interesting that Proton feels like a step forward in cross-platform gaming, but it also made it more economical to focus on Windows builds and dependencies.

Steam has a lot of power in the market and a vested interest in making things easier for developers and publishers. I wouldn’t be surprised if they picked up (more of) the slack in keeping systems backwards compatible.

Same as Microsoft, sort of. They can’t afford to have Apple’s “courage” in dropping x86 and then amd64.

Steam, as mentioned, and an old iMac that I’ve been meaning to dual-boot for a while.

This kind of thing is mostly inevitable, but has an impact on software and game preservation.

The i686-pc-windows-gnu target has been demoted to Tier 2, as mentioned in an earlier post.

Fedora is discussing dropping support entirely, right? Interesting times we live in…

Like if the variable is then used in a function that only takes one type? Huh.

And bow to the compiler’s whims? I think not!

This shouldn’t compile, because .into needs the type from the left side and let needs the type from the right side.

I came here to laugh, not to cry!

[clicks light switch off and on repeatedly]

Welp, I guess we’re closed for the week.

I’d say I feel seen, but it’s really dark in here.

let a = String::from(“Hello, world!”).into()

I’ll see myself out.

Good article, thanks for the link! In the context of this conversation, I can agree that being exposed to different ways of solving problems will make you better and faster at doing just that.

Common criticisms here would be that these endeavors stifle creativity and show the adoption of modern solutions. That said, I find conducting “code archeology” to figure out the idiomatic way of doing something in an old project very rewarding. Because computer programs exist in people’s mind’s, doing that with the support of original developers or subject matter experts is some of the most effective knowledge transfer I’ve ever witnessed.

My take on a summary: like C/C++, Rust can be relevant in a variety of use-cases and one could conceivably build a long-term career on it, while adjusting to market/technology interests.

Seems like a reasonable prediction?

That totally threw me off. “Literally unplayable,” as they say.

That makes sense. I’m also involved in localization efforts. In niche cases, it’s paid off to work with the clients directly on that. You get you a good balance between correctness and day-to-day usefulness.