kreco

They are both villains.

If a customer ask me to get all my butchery stock for a year, it will make thousands of client unhappy and will make one client happy, so I'll simply refuse.

This is not how business is supposed to be, the world is not supposed to be a B2B chaos.

I know how the business is done "supply demand" bla bla. That does not make it ethical one bit.

No it's just a personal opinion. I like the UX of using dots for everything.

Don't think too much about it though, it was to express a personal opinion.

I just like "dots" for everything, and there are some reasons to distinguish package/module qualification, struct/class member access (.), or static member access (::).

I assumed Evergreen blindly imitated Rust.

However, I believe Rust purposely imitated C++, for reasons. And I still don't like it.

A lot of language are doing fine using dots. And if you are going to use '::' you can have your reasons. I would still find it annoying to type and read.

Just to add precision: I critic the syntax (which is very subjective), and I critic the parroting, as two separated arguments.

I don't have a link but you can search on the web. I have the .pdf on my computer.

From "A History of C++: 1979− 1991".

> In C with Classes, a dot was used to express membership of a class as well as expressing selection of a member of a particular object. This had been the cause of some minor confusion and could also be used to construct ambiguous examples. To alleviate this, :: was introduced to mean membership of class and . was retained exclusively for membership of object.

It was taken from Algol68.

Then, this was reused for namespaces for consistency reason.

Sorry for the non constructive comment:

I wish we would stop xxx::yyy::zzz for namespace.

It was horrible in C++ from day one, and is still horrible in Rust.

It had some reason to be this way in C++ but not in any other newer language.

Real negative part: it looks to me that the authors of those languages are parroting other languages rather than understanding the reason of those language choice.

This simply worries me because I judge the level of expertise and makes me not consider the language in the first place.

(I know C++ and Rust are alive but they share their fair share of poor design choice)

Not sure why you are being downvoted here.

> Why is this on the HN front page?

This question was not necessary. You know the answer, because people upvoted this.

Thanks for sharing!

From the title, I knew what it was about.

This Super Metroid guide is some crazy stuff I'll always remember. I was reading it and then a 10 minutes later I noticed, it was such unique feeling. Definitely a piece of art.

You people are crazy.

Post a article about a C++ program and the entire world is coming at you saying Rust is better because it's safer and you are crazy to use such language is 2026.

Post about food safety. And suddenly safety is negligible because it's not that much.

Keep going guys.

Can we stop pretending people health is insignificant because it is statistically insignificant?

How many people will consume this, how many people will get sick?

How many more product will be dangerous. Are we waiting for more death to just have bare minimum safety measures?

I can't disagree with this in the current state.

But I believe it would be easy to fix with limitation for the free accounts (CI time limit, total size of repo limit etc.)

What is the point of the comment?

I read it as "some forks are successful", and well, you need to fork to be a successful fork.

Fair. I should have said that the boycott is totally on a different level.

It happens to be Russian. So people boycott it.

You may note that when US goes to war nobody boycott the US.

> I was kind of thinking of switching to codeberg, but now I am questioning their decisions here.

It reads to me that you are afraid of getting your project removed if you ever move. No need to pretend you care about the morality of their decision.

I was expecting a a link to the source code after the "written in C".

The title made me realized that there is less and less use of the "serverless".

Which was one of the most non-sensical word to say "You don't maintain the server".

I find his comment interesting. It's just mundane feedback, but still a feedback.

Likewise, you could ignore his comment but decided to engage.

> "yes it has a reputation for being confusing, but much of it is undeserved"

This is not what is written here:

> Git is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be. They just never take the few hours it takes to understand it. Which is a sad state of affairs for such an essential tool in the belt of any software engineer.

> just does not cut it, if you call yourself a professional.

> You've made one and only one point in this thread so far: I'm addressing only that point. You've provided no other elaborations. You're saying "it has a reputation for being confusing, therefore it is confusing." That's a bullshit statement, IMO.

I'll repeat myself, I can show you thousands of messages point out how git is confusing. I can show you plenty of message saying "I used X it was fine, but I used git and it's cumbersome", please show me the same amount of messages telling "I used git it was fine, but I used XXX and it's cumbersome."

You are moving the goalposts.

I could show you thousands of message backing up the confusion.

But you can keep nitpick irrelevant part of messages and pretend you are very smart.

This is irrelevant to the topic.

I didn't ask why git was widely used. I didn't say git was useless.

Again, there were version controls before git came out.

You conveniently cherry picked the least relevant part of my message.

No one said everything should be easy as pie.

There are other software similar to git that have not such reputation. Version control is not new.

There is no aggression.

If your product has a reputation to confuse users compared to other products, your product confuses users.

Let's not start to bend reality just to back up some narrative because after reading a N hours documentation everything is OK.

> Git is not nearly as confusing as people make it out to be.

The people are confused, it's a fact. So it is confusing. Stop gaslighting people.

Yes. But definitely not this year.

AI is trained on a various range of code quality, including very low one.

I'm paid to provide good quality code and not flood my company with more average code than it should.

In my previous job, I could regularly reduce a PR code down to 10-20%% of its size because someone overlooked something or was just "overengineer" a feature.

AI are such "bullshiters" that they produce more text than necessary.

Code bloat was already real, but from my personal experience it becomes realer with AI. The outcome of this will likely be apparent when no one can dive into any code base because of the amount of fluff in it (and you will obviously need more AI to deal with this).

> why wouldn't they just sell it?

Serious question, is there any kind of entities that can be owned, but not "dismantled", if you don't want it you need to try to sell or make it independant.

Would there be any chance to make it a thing when a company is bought?