spoiler

I don't mind the dialogue, but if we're taking about the same author, some of the content gets diminished by the meandering waffling.

I realise it's a stylistic choice but there's been a few posts where I felt tired after reading their articles. And it also feels like one of those YouTube shorts sketches where one person pretends to be multiple people and it starts feeling a bit cheap/meh.

I think it would be fine if it they toned down on the interjections/interruptions

I think one of those pedagogical half-truths useful for onboarding people onto an idea across different languages or getting parts of a point across, and they cover some similar use-cases.

It's a bit like saying JavaScript's prototypes are classes even though they're technically not (even with the introduction of the `class` syntactic sugar), but for casual discussions it's probably fine to just say "JS class".

But to your point: I wouldn't really phrase the way the GP did; it makes it seem like they're on the same level of usefulness as a type class!

I think the barrier to entry with Rust is lower than C++. Like was way lower... And I've been writing C++ for way long than Rust, so I'm probably a bit biased

I found their comment hilarious... I can't tell if it's satire or not. There's just too much going on at the same time for this not to be trolling lol

Var wasn't "a mistake", and there's still (albeit niche) use cases where var makes sense. But for most cases, you do want to write a let/const declaration, even though they're not "free" technically.

You're saying "force into this and that" like there's some evil omnipotent entity compelling people to write Rust against their own free will lol. What do you mean by forced? People enjoy writing Rust, so hence it's being written in other projects.

Saying LLVM is written in C++ doesn't really bring much to the discussion. It was released 25 years ago, and C++ was released 40 years ago (hey, it's older than me lol). Rust was released like 10 years ago. So, yeah... I guess it makes sense that they used C++ back then? I'd have picked C++ back then too.

I've written C++ for about 15 years, and I don't have a blind hatred for the languge, but going back to it doesn't fill me with joy either, especially after having written Rust for the past few years.

The module system is more intuitive to use than the preprocessing file concatenation. There's also a nice package manager. I know some people find this a downside though, but I prefer it to fighting autoconf or CMake.

Syntax highlighting for Rust code doesn't lag 10+ seconds.

Symbol search doesn't require three different third-party tools to work.

Documentation is built in AND nice (no doxy doesn't count as nice, not in any universe).

Testing is built in. There's a (mostly) homogeneous build system

The borrowing rules are things you think about in C++ anyway, but Rust just makes it so you don't forget them; there's some clang lints that help with this in C++ anyway.

The syntax, while sometimes a bit noisy, is nicer in the average case, but C++ has been getting better in that regard.

There's much fewer API gotchas with Rust than with C++ (from the top of my head: closures, std::optional, std::variant, iterators, {a..z}values, a managerie of constructors, SFINAE, all these things have pain in the ass built in as a core principle). I also despise function overloading.

The macro system, while I don't like it too much in Rust, makes things

The type system in Rust is so much better it's not even comparable.

But anyway, Rust has some downsides. It requires you to change how you design solution sometimes. The compilation times are crap (but the compilers also does so much).

At the end of the day, we're all useful idiots at some point in our lives. I'm someone who leans more on the freedom/libertarian side and dislike what's happening in the EU.

But on the other hand, I do think someone type of content shouldn't be allowed... And it gives me a bit of cognitive dissonance. Take this polish AI crap for example: I think people should be able to freely speak about these issues, and I'm not opposed to them reaching for anonymity even through AI. But on the other hand, we also don't know if this is a foreign misinformation campaign or just a politically disgruntled Pole. I'm okay with the disgruntled Pole voicing their opinion, but I'm not okay with foreign actors manipulating people's opinions.

I think they have some good points (having a deep understanding of tools you use), but I think the path they take achieve those results is misguided.

A stupid example off the top of my head: I use VSCode and often I'll use the integrated git commit feature. But if need to bisect, rebase, merge, or edit a commit, I will just use the CLI. I don't feel like using the commit GUI makes me worse at using git.

All in all, I think the author thinks that familiarity with one tool makes people worse at another similar tool, but I don't think that's the necessarily the case. At worst, memory might fade if the other tool isn't used, but that's fine, it's clearly not used often. As an analogy: if I don't speak German every day, I don't need to be fluent in German either.

I'm a bit on the fence about this.

If someone buys a TV (y'know, a device that's supposed to reproduce sound and moving pictures), it should at least be decent at both. But if people want a high-end 5.1/7.1/whatever.1 sound then by all means they should be able to upgrade.

My mum? She doesn't want or need that, nor does she realistically have the space to have a high-end home-cinema entertainment setup (much less a dedicated room for it).

It's just a TV in her living room surrounded by cat toys and some furniture.

So, if she buys a nearly €1000 TV (she called it a "stupid star trek TV") it should at least be decent—although at that price tag you'd reasonably expect more than just decent—at everything it's meant to do of the box. She shouldn't need to constantly adjust sound volume or settings, or spend another thousand on equipment and refurbishment to access to decent sound.

In contrast, they say the old TV that's now at nan's house has much better sound (even if the screen is smaller) and are thinking of swapping the TVs since nan moved back in with my mum.

The problem is multi-faceted. There was a YouTube video from a few years ago that explains this[1]. But, I kind of empathise with you; I and some friends also have this issue sometimes when watching things.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYJtb2YXae8

Not the author, but it seems to be only stylistic

I honestly found the women interesting in the book, and not samey. I mean the Alethi have a masculine/feminine society shift, but Navani, Jasnah and Shallan all very different.

The characters aren't flat at all, there's a lot of nuance to all of them.

I guess this is one of those the beauty is in the eye of the beholder situations.

Ah. I know what you mean about Venli/Eshonai throwbacks. Those gave me a few "ugh here we go again" moments on my read through, but they do build up to give more context about the Parshendi and how/why the current conflicts starts and who they are as a people (trying to avoid spoilers as much as I can). I still think it's a bit of a slog, but I appreciate it a bit more now...

I've been saying this for years, and it gets down voted occasionally, but safari/webkit feels like the new IE6. I know Chrome is very bullish with adding extra features and is aggressively pushing some standards, but I've rarely had to write "workarounds" or hacks for Chrome when writing web-standard compliant code for other browsers, but I've had to frequently do it for Safari.

It's been a few years since I've had battle Safari quirks, one example that stuck with me from a couple of years ago is that LocalStorage is not available in private browsing mode. Other browsers just treat it as ephemeral/SessionStorage basically.

Also I remember our Sentry being _littered_ with random React internals throwing (it was like a couple of different things), but it was only ever iOS that had those issues.

As a late millennial: yep. We're in the same boat. Nihilistic optimism isn't the worst coping mechanism, though!

More broadly, this is the ages old surrogate vs natural key discussion, but yes the comment completely misses the point of the article. I can only assume they didn't read it in full!

I don't know the authors of those posts, so I don't want to put word in their mouth, but neither seem to be delusional about the "if it compiles, it works" phrase. The first one qualifies it with "most of the time", and the second one explicitly mentions using type state as a tool to aid correctness...

But I don't doubt there are people who take that phrase too literally, though.

There's also a slight performance caveat when it comes to interfaces vs intersections (&) to keep in mind: https://github.com/microsoft/Typescript/wiki/Performance#pre...

Technically there's still a build step happening under the hood! But another benefit of shifting TS into JSDoc comments is that it also works in browsers. That being said, while I understand the aversion to unnecessary complexity, I'm personally fine with a build step to remove TS. It's a much nicer syntax IMO. And with tools like `swc` for type stripping, it's pretty snappy too.

As someone who was raised by aggressive alcoholics, and I have myself struggled with weed addiction in the past (and seen weed addiction in others), it's really difficult to compare the substances. Yes, weed dependence is bad and people need to be aware of it, but alcohol (and I'd even say nicotine, but that's a different subject) are far more insidious than weed

I generally like—and write—these types of doc comments myself. It just looks nicer in docs/intellisense.

I'm a big proponent of "everything public should have a doc comment," even if it's a short sentence. Doesn't hurt to have it. I never understood people who are allergic to comments.

The fact LLMs add comments is one of the few non-sloppy things they do, IMO

Probably an unpopular take, but I really think Vercel has lost the plot. I don't know what happened to the company internally. But, it feels like the first few, early, iterations of Next were great, and then it all started progressively turning into slop from a design perspective.

An example of this is filesystem routing. Started off great, but now most Next projects look like the blast radius of a shell script gone terribly wrong.

There's also a(n in)famous GitHub response from one of the maintainers backwards-rationalising tech debt and accidental complexity as necessary. They're clearly smart, but the feeling I got from reading that comment was that they developed Stockholm syndrome towards their own codebase.

Tangentially related, but I'm low key miffed that em dashes get a bad rep now because of AI.

They're a great way to "inject" something into a sentence, similar to how people speak in person. I feel like my written style has now gotten worse because I have to dumb it down, or I'll be anxious any writing/linguistic flourish will be interpreted as gen AI

It takes considerably more effort and skill to treat colleagues as humans rather than "outputs" or ticket processing nodes.

Most (middle) management is an exercise in ass-covering, rather than creating healthy teams. They get easily scared when "Jira isn't green", and look someone else to blame for not doing the managing part correctly

Are we witch hunting Cloudflare now? What have they done? I think overall CF seems like a pretty decent company? Lol I'm a bit out of the loop it seems.

Also what mis-information (other than the claiming CF integrated with LE, but it turns out CF offered free certs before LE even existed lol) did I spread?

My bad! I slightly confused my timeline. CF offered free certs long before LE!

Right, DoctorOW correct me; I have limited memory about the state of affairs from a decade ago. They offered free certs for a long time regardless of LE integration

I never said Cloudflare was behind Let's Encrypt… Did I? Probably just a misunderstanding.

Someone l pointed out I mixed up my timeline a bit because this was over a decade ago, but it turns out CF offered free certs even earlier than LE :)

So, while i got the details wrong, I still stand behind what I say: most sites on the web even have TLS enabled because CF offers it for free. I'm not talking about the reverse proxy aspect, but from the UA's perspective

To be fair, Cloudflare is also the reason why most sites even have TLS at all, because it offered free certs (through letsencrypt I think?) in a fairly easy to set up way.

Certs used to be expensive, and had way more operational overhead and quirks (even setting up ACME/LE)

Uh, I've used the package repository with GitHub, and I don't remember having to do this! So, I'm not entirely sure what's happening here. I think this might be accidental complexity because there's probably a misconfiguration somewhere...

But on that point I agree, initial set-up can be extremely dauntin due to the amoun of different technologies that interact, and requires a level of familiarity that most people don't want to have with these tools. which is understandable; they're a means to an end and Devs don't really enjoys playing with them (DevOps do tho!). I've had to wear many hats in my career, and was the unofficial dedicated DevOps guy in a few teams, so for better or worse had to grow familiar with them.

Often (not always) there's an easier way out, but spotting it through the bushes of documentation and overgrown configuration can be annoying.