pushfoo

If I understood you correctly, the ML family seems to come closest, especially Elm and F#'s use of |> syntax.

It seems a little odd for a cyber security agency to only post:

1. vague text

2. a contact email address

3. a PDF

You'd expect this from an email scam, not a .gov site with a valid SSL cert.

> typing is awful, unsound in a lot of cases

tl;dr:

1. This is my biggest issue with Python.

2. Are there any tolerable solutions you've found?

3. Are there any non-Python languages you'd recommend?

The root of Python's typing issues seems to be ad-hoc syntax recycling as a stand-in for a thoroughly planned type system. Understandably, Guido and others advise using Protocol types to make up for earlier design decisions. It sort of works, but:

1. It's effectively an unspoken deprecation for parts of the standard library

2. Current design choices create new problems

3. It still doesn't reliably prevent runtime errors

Things break down further as you move beyond the built-ins:

1. Pydantic and other tools come with their own problems

2. Ugly things happen at boundary lines in APIs (ctypes vs OOP)

3. All of these get even worse as Sphinx gets involved

The last two items came up in a recent PR discussion. The other commenter's point seemed correct: simple, specific, and rigid types prevent problems. But then why should we have Generic and Union at all?

I'm still going to use Python when necessary, but it makes the grass look very green near languages like OCaml and Elm. If Rider can make .NET's packaging tolerable, maybe F# would be good too. Are there any others you'd suggest?

How is the F# experience on Rider compared to VS Code and other options?

The San Diego link shows a "That position was not found" message.

This tracks with how I've seen "normal" languages converge on similar, flawed imitations of better type systems through tools and repurposed syntax. Thank you for confirming.

Do you have any recommendations or warnings regarding general languages which reach in the opposite direction? Reason[1] and F#[2] are both examples: they attach pre-existing ecosystems and compile-for-$PLATFORM tools to OCaml-like typing.

OCaml itself is also intriguing. However, I'm concerned that suggesting it for non-personal projects will go over poorly. The "GPL" in its standard library's LGPL license may scare people despite both the linking exception and Jane Street's MIT alternative.

1. https://reasonml.github.io/

2. https://fsharp.org/

> Jane Street

> they were consistently building things with just one or a handful of people that would have taken multiple teams at other organizations I've seen.

> you develop a shared mental model of the system you're developing

How much of this was due using OCaml?

Despite some language-specific quirks, trying Elm has almost convinced me that dynamic typing is a mistake for any parts of a project which don't need to be used from a REPL context.

For any readers who can't watch a video at the moment:

1. To be precise, Pop Shell is an extension for Gnome, not a separate window manager 2. It's available pre-packaged on Fedora, Arch, and Manjaro 3. It's easy to install from source on other distros

Install instructions & source available here: 1. https://support.system76.com/articles/pop-shell/ 2. https://github.com/pop-os/shell

I use it as a daily driver on Debian 11. It's the best balance of tiling and "normal" desktop UI I've found so far.

> more resilient, both to natural phenomena, equipment failures and sabotage.

I think you're understating the risks from geomagnetic storms. In comparison to satellites, fiber optic cables seem like they'd be relatively unaffected even if the equipment attached to them needs replacement.

1. Where is the bookmarking feature? The star next to the score doesn't seem to do anything. If it's an icon to indicate score, it would be clearer to use a different icon.

2. For consistency, I'd use text headings at the top left of the time and score boxes, or at the very least put the icons on the left.

3. The 'View Solution' animation playback is confusingly fast. I'd add a step-by-step playback with forward/backward buttons as the default mode. You could still offer a checkbox to enable auto-playback, and a slider to adjust playback speed.

4. Since this seems to be based on the same toolkit Lichess uses, using the same color behavior for moves would be helpful.

5. Please offer a checkbox to enable showing possible moves when pieces are clicked like Lichess does.

I don't think real life is the main issue. Instead, it seems like the same issue PGP has: the benefits never outweighed the bad UX for most people.

Spammers would submit fake tags faster than everyday users. Since this is a social problem rather than a technical one, maybe old-school trust networks are worth considering instead.

You may want to reach out to Dr. Sile O’Modhrain (https://smtd.umich.edu/faculty-profiles/sile-omodhrain/).

She is a highly experienced blind researcher & a co-founder of NewHaptics, a tactile display startup (https://www.newhaptics.com/).

Even if you want to focus on accessibility testing rather than hardware, Dr. O'Modhrain may be able to connect you with useful guidance. I would also mention your programming experience in case NewHaptics is looking for someone to help with testing hardware, firmware, or drivers.

For anyone looking to write a CHIP-8 emulator, Matt Mikolay's writeup is less ambiguous:

https://github.com/mattmikolay/chip-8/wiki/CHIP%E2%80%908-Te...

If you want to target the original Cosmac VIP behavior, corax89's test ROM is good:

https://github.com/corax89/chip8-test-rom