Yeah the way I got out was a bit cryptic, although I think there are multiple ways. I’m shameless enough to use a walkthrough when I’ve been stuck for a while, otherwise I’d be having an even harder time.

Planescape: Torment

I haven’t played a lot infinity engine games and I’ve struggled with understanding what the game expects of me in terms of gameplay. Hopefully I’ll internalize that eventually but I’ve been enjoying the writing and vibes so far even if the gameplay feel a bit frustrating and a bit like a chore at the moment.

Ah ok just read the article and not the proposal. I’m surprised that they went that far but as I wrote I think that lifetime annotations are a good idea, hope the C++ people find a way to add them to the language that actually works well, which sounds like an incredibly difficult task.

I’m a bit skeptical that a borrow checker in C++ can be as powerful as in rust, since C++ doesn’t have lifetime annotations. Without lifetime annotations, you have to do a whole program analysis to get the equivalent checks which isn’t even possible if you’re e.g. loading dynamic libraries, and prohibitively slow otherwise. Without that you can only really do local analysis which is of course good but not that powerful.

Lifetime annotations in the type system is the right call, since it allows library authors to impose invariants related to ownership on their consumers. I doubt C++ will add it to their typesystem though.

Vim sort of already has this feature via set foldmethod=syntax. This doesn’t work exactly like the author suggests but you can also use set foldmethod=expr and then set foldexpr to a more complicated expression to only get nested function/method bodies, via tree sitter for example if you’re on neovim.

My favorite example of haskell arcane wizardry is löb. It’s mentioned in this list but not really done justice imo.

To add on this, this doesn’t necessarily mean that there are fewer programing jobs in total. If people work 10% more efficently, that means that the cost of labor is only 91% of what it was before meaning that people might be able to afford to finance more programing projects. One thing that does matter is for example things like entry level jobs disappearing or the nature of the work changing. Doing less boring gruntwork can make the job more fun, but otoh digitization sometimes results in the worker having less agency in what they do since they have to fit everything into a possibly inflexible digital system.

I’m using “OOP” more in the sense that is described in the article, but that is a fair perspective on rust and OOP. It is a term with a lot of different interpretations after all.

Curious to hear what in Rust could be more easily solved with OOP! I think one reason for rust not using OOP is because they want to minimize dynamic dispatch and keep it explicit where it happens, because it’s a language that gives you very fine grained control of resource usage, kinda similar to how you have to be explicit about copying for most types. Most trait calls are static dispatch unless you have a Box::<dyn SomeTrait>

What do you mean by its predecessor? C++? I think rust has a bunch of advantages. For one, designing a new language today gives you the benefit of hindsight meaning that they have a more cohesive set of features and a nicer standard library compared to C++ that has some bloat and cruft as a natural result of it evolving over several decades. It’s also much easier to reason about undefined behavior in rust thanks to unsafe. Algebraic data types are really nice and traits are better than classes.

The borrow checker isn’t just useful for low level programming. One of the other main selling points is “fearless concurrency” or essentially the fact that the borrow checker can help you reason about thread safe vs non thread safe data.

I dunno, CMake has one of the worst syntaxes I’ve ever seen, and despite that it’s one of the most popular languages used for C/C++ build scripting. This is because it has certain technical benefits compared to its competitors. I’m certain that having “bad” syntax is a disadvantage but it’s less important than other factors. Also I don’t think that Rusts syntax is universally disliked either.

If you’re hobby programming then do whatever you want obviously but if you’re part of some sort of larger project that’s trying to decide between Rust and C++ then subjective aesthetic arguments probably aren’t going to be considered as heavily as technical ones (and rightfully so), which in Rusts case could be that certain classes of bugs are impossible. That’s not to say that it’s not possible to make a technical case for C++ over rust but syntax preferences probably aren’t going to play a large role in how widely used either languages are, which is good.

I don’t think that everyone has to switch to rust or anything but “I dislike the syntax” and “I only want familiar things” are really bad arguments for not using a language. Try something outside of your comfort zone for a bit, it will help you grow as a programmer.

I’m surprised that no one seems to have brought up curl, which is maintained by Daniel Stenberg who is Just Some Guy™

When I’m just locally iterating on stuff I’ll usually do a git commit -m "WIP: Description of what I'm trying to do" and then git commit --amend to it. A bit more ergonomic than stashing if I want to switch branches imo. I can also go back to old versions if I want to through the reflog.

git commit --fixup some-commit is also great for if I discover things in the review for example. You can then do git rebase master --autosquash to flatten them into the commit they belong to and that way you don’t have to bother with commit messages like “fixed typo”. Doing fixups for small fixes is good because it allows you to keep your mr broken up into several commits without also leaving in a bunch of uninteresting history.

Can recommend checking out the –fixup section in the git documentation if you haven’t heard about --fixup before.

Nice, I’ll check it out. I’ve been meaning to customize the desktop a bit more but it works well enough for the moment.

There are probably better alternatives, but I have a raspbery pi plugged into my tv and use KDE connect to remote control the mouse and keyboard from my phone. If I wanna watch youtube I’ll navigate to youtube.com and click on a video.

The different worktrees share the same .git state. The article has an example where the author uses one tree for writing code and one for fuzzing it. If they used multiple clones they’d have to push from the writing directory and pull from the fuzzing directory to get new commits to fuzz but with worktrees this state synchronization between different git directories happens automatically.

There’s a difference between the author being mad that github is switching to react and the author being mad that github is misusing react. It is possible to use react without breaking browsers find in page functionality, which is ultimately what the author is frustrated about.

Looking at the example

Why does the generated bash look like that? Is this more safe somehow than a more straighforward bash if or does it just generate needlessly complicated bash?