proto_lambda

> you are free to not use his free software

That's exactly what they're doing, what are you talking about?

That's not how the fediverse works, Mathstodon is just one of many servers in the network (running the Mastodon software).

The chart also lists the control key combination for each control byte, for NUL, it's C-@.

What it boils down to is "Users who don't even know what a trigger is should be discouraged from handling footguns". Sure, if you don't have the resources to learn about the subject, you might miss out on some fun, but it's much more likely that you'd blow off your foot instead, which would be much less fun.

Users who don't even know the meaning of "unsafe" almost definitely shouldn't be writing unsafe code.

> with less fear for the situations where you do need to bypass the borrow checker such as with cyclical references in graphs

That's a pretty tricky thing to get right, and with the consequence for getting it wrong being UB, at least a little fear is warranted.

Both for_each() and collect() into a Vec exhaust the iterator.

Funny how the author both demands vague new ergonomics features (with no explanation how they might actually work), and at the same time demands the language team to stop adding new ergonomcis features.

Note: ad is a normal noun, not an initialism. It took me a couple moments to realize what you meant.

It looks like the author is confused about or unaware of the difference between static and dynamic dispatch. Their Display and Iterator types are really just vtables; the correct comparison to Rust would be the `dyn Display` and `dyn Iterator` trait objects (which are types).

In my experience, it's really just getting worse slower than google is. For the kind of queries that google already failed at years ago, DDG has also gotten worse.

I mean, it's a library that implements a language feature. It's surprising it's possible at all, even if really ugly.

> Tbh I have no idea how you came away thinking I said lead is hard.

I did not, in fact, come away thinking lead is hard. I did, however, explain and spell out for you how @kragen probably did so; I'm not sure how I can make it any more clear.

The first sentence of your comment was structured like this: [reason to use lead], but [reason to use tungsten]. At least I expected the second sentence to expand on the pros of tungsten, when in fact it was about the pros of lead; interpreting it as the former would mean lead is a hard material.

Maybe it was updated, but its's right there under "Length".

Fast Ethernet is better than no Ethernet, and gigabit is unachievable in low-end FPGAs.

We absolutely do fine/convict homeowners if, in a burglary, their improperly secured gun is stolen. The fines aren't for being hacked, they're for not adequately securing user data; ownership of which is a conscious decision.

> Wings are useless to generate lift at those altitudes.

They aren't, though. They still work, just much less well. There isn't one altitude where wings suddenly stop working entirely - there is however an altitude where generating enough lift to sustain flight would require going so fast that you're already in orbit (regardless of lift), according to wikipedia it's somewhere around 80km.

The Karman line has nothing to do with lift, it's just an arbitrary, round number.

You are, but that was never in question.

> A simple example: I search through a list of n items to find item m, iterators typically don't let you break out of the iteration.

That'd be a pretty crappy iterator implementation, short-circuiting is basically what iterators are all about (how else would you handle infinite iterators?). For example, in Rust, it's simply Iterator::find(): https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/iter/trait.Iterator.html#metho...

for loops in Rust are basically just syntax sugar for a while loop taking an element of the iterator each iteration, you can use break/continue as normal.

C-style for loops can almost always be replaced with iterators in a more concise manner. No need for the explicit termination check or the explicit advancement expression, that's already handled by the iterator.

> They mean the same thing.

What? No, they don't. The first one means "There are no real programmers who write code in assembly", in other words "Real programmers don't write code in assembly", while the second one means "Real programmers write code in assembly". It is very literally the exact opposite.

> There's no reason to have the hallway or bathroom lights on all the time

Who does that, rather than just turning them on when you need them and then turning them off again?

Are you sure? With JS disabled, the vote arrows are simple links for me that work as expected.

That would require users to run client-side scripts for basic site functionality.

From that quote, I'd say it's the upper limit of what's considered "moderate".

Where is that? 330ml bottles definitely exist, but 0.5l is the default in Austria.

Maybe not much better, but that's hardly the only alternative

This gets posted again and again, and every time I look at it, the code quality is absolutely terrible. Remote access software is by design a complete internet-accessible backdoor to your system, I will never use one that is written as shoddily as this one.

> That means that buildings are built with the expectation of being warmed...

That doesn't seem strange to me. At even lower temperatures, water pipes will burst, so you have to heat it at least a little in winter. Waste heat from humans might be enough to avoid freezing temperatures, but then humans also produce a lot of humidity, causing mold.