I had no idea about the assertion! Thanks.
Yes, this is plain wrong or often unimportant on modern architecture, you’re right. I, certainly mistakenly, thought this was one of the reasons for the idiomatic version involving function composition, which is the thing I, subjectively, don’t enjoy as much.
I stand corrected.
Thanks for the detailed answer. Preaching to the choir.
The existence of the concept of ownership in languages like C++ is why I threw “moderately” in there. I agree depending on what you take that to mean, it may or may not do some heavy lifting.
For the rest, I’d divide it into hard facts (compiler messages are absolutely undeniable, in any circumstance) and things that can definitely be true depending on your personal use cases. I’m with you on this: for the vast vast majority of tasks commonly understood as software engineering, memory safety is a concern, and a lot, if not all, of your points, are valid.
I must humbly insist that it does not fit my needs, in the sense that memory safety is of no concern to me, and that the restrictions that a compiler-enforced approach imposes make me less productive, and, subjectively, also less enjoyable because causing more friction.
That being said, you may also not consider what I’m currently doing to be software engineering, and that’s totally fine. Then we’d agree entirely.
EDIT: also, there are very few languages less productive and beginner-friendly than C++ in my opinion. The proverbial bar is in hell. But you are talking to an unreasonable C++ hater.
What? You need to make a function to make a loop? That can’t be right???
Ah no, there is a misunderstanding. You can write C-loops, of course, they just could involve more work under the hood because in order to enforce memory safety, there needs to be some form of bounds checking that does not happen in C. Caveat: I don’t know whether that’s always true, and what the subtleties are. Maybe I’m wrong about that even, but what is true is that what I am about to say, you will encounter in Rust codebases.
By function composition I meant in the mathematical sense. So, this example explains the gist of it. You may need to throw in a lambda function in there to actually do the job, yeah. I don’t know what the compiler actually reduces that to though.
It’s just the more functional approach that you can also see with Haskell for example. I find it harder to parse, but that may be lack of training rather than intrinsic difficult.
EDIT: pasted the wrong link to something totally irrelevant, fixed now
Ah, a fellow C coder. Never did do assembly with chips older than x86_64 basically. The only old school stuff I touched was writing an interpreter for the CHIP-8. I tried writing some CHIP-8 too, but coming from more recent paradigms, it seemed quite unwieldy to me.
I like python for quick and dirty stuff, I don’t like python for being interpreted and it being not obvious what happens under the hood, memory wise, at a glance.
Seeing as you do C I’ll say this. The one thing I really did not enjoy, subjectively, with Rust, is that writing “C-style loops” comes with a performance penalty because there are bound checks happening, so the idiomatic version of a loop in Rust usually involves iterators and function composition.
I am stupid. C-loops are easy for me to understand. More sophisticated stuff is hard for my little brain. I’d rather be trusted with my memory access, and be reminded of my stupidity when comes the inevitable segfault. Keeps you humble.
Enjoy! I don’t know what you used to seriously program on but I am willing to be that the ownership paradigm that it enforces is going to feel at least moderately new to you, unless you forced yourself to code that way anyways.
Plus, as long as you’re doing silly little home projects, the compiler errors are the absolute best I’ve ever seen. Literally just learn basic syntax, try it out, and when it does not compile, the compiler not only tells you why but also what it thinks you’re trying to do and how to fix.
Absolute gem of a learning tool.
No, Rust is to make you feel like you haven’t programmed seriously in 20 years when you first pick it up, even though you are actively doing it.
Before the angry rust “mob” comes to get me: this is a joke. I tried Rust out of genuine curiosity, cobbled together a silly little thing, and quite liked it. The borrow checker made me feel like a total beginner again, in some aspects, and it was great to get that feeling again.
Ultimately it does not fit my needs, but there are a few features I am pretty envious of. I can totally see why it’s getting such a following, and I hope it keeps growing.
It might be?..
Oops, I meant to say: “hayaaa”
Breaking pots. Don’t mind me.
EDIT: holdup, who are you calling a sysadmin? I administer my system, sure, but that’s about as far as I’m willing to go, thank you.
I’d love to keep it clean but too many devs think $HOME is up for grabs, as long as they prepend their directory names with a dot (they think I’ll never notice, but I notice, and I keep a list…)
Holy shit I want to meet the kind of people who are willingly testing a nightly build of Windows. They sound fucking unhinged.
I was going to try and defend them by saying that given the number of recent layoffs, and the push from the higher-ups, they’re not necessarily vibe coders by choice.
But then I remembered, I don’t give a shit about a company where devs think that rendering characters to a terminal emulator is a PhD-level problem, and that it’s a good idea to use react native in your start menu, to only name two.
Because the rigour and quality of work that is needed to do good software to get to market is insanely higher than the one required for keeping the money machine alive once you are a monopoly. So as you hire more and more to get your hands in as many pies as possible, have fewer and fewer experienced staff to train the new hires, and do questionable hires in leadership positions, the culture invariably shifts to doing less and less effort, or putting effort in the wrong place, and there you have it.
Now in Microsoft’s case, the quality was never that high to begin with (but the scummy practices made up for that), and the pockets are deep aplenty, so I think we are in for quite the shitshow (it can, and it will, get even worse).
Just a few bookmarks. I realise that as time goes on and the internet gets worse, there are only so many websites I am accessing now.
And also I could probably just get an offline copy of some of them. I should just get books really…
I mean to be fair, I am making a conscious effort to stay open minded when I give advice to people, but I also personally would avoid snaps (and Flatpak, but for different reasons) altogether.
But this is more me being opinionated and strongly disagreeing with canonical practices. I don’t mind sacrificing some of the convenience because of that, but wouldn’t push it on anyone.
All this to say, I don’t know the reasons why people tell you to avoid snaps, but I can imagine at least a dozen that would be valid opinions from technically minded open source people, so I would not jump to conclusions.
The snap thing has spanned a whole drama since the beginning so there’s a heavy context behind you might not be aware of. Or maybe you are and don’t care that’s totally fine too.
I was diplomatically explaining to an older family member just the other day that the top “result” in Google now is a bloody AI summary, and to not trust it, especially for medical advice after they’d sent us a worrying screenshot of it…
I can’t wait for the next conversation.
For signal, you can add their PPA As explained here
For Godot, their website has an AppImage. This is a case where I’d say it makes sense not to have it being automatically updated, because if you work on a video game for the kind of time frame that they usually require, you want to decide when to upgrade your game engine (or not to at all) as it may break your current project. But you know your needs, just thought I’d explain the rationale for that particular one.
For Blender… Yeah if the version is outdated and you want automatic upgrades then Snap works. Maybe someone could chime in with another recommendation but that sounds sensible to me.
I also find KDE to be a real mixed bag. Every time I have tried it, thinking “maybe it got better”, it has ranged from being a bit buggy to “holy shit this is well broken”. I may just have been really unlucky but I have been burned too many times and now avoid it altogether.
And he’s also the best fucking programmer of all time.
That sounds like quite the combo, hope you’re doing alright. I’ll probably pass on calling you schizo though if that’s ok. I had just assumed you were shitposting tbh, but whatever floats your boat. Hope you enjoy the community and the Linux experience
Terry Davis.
Welp, here’s sincerely hoping this is not a bad omen.
That’s the sort of indictment of C++ I like to hear. It’s not just me then. I sometimes feel like I’m taking crazy pills with some colleagues who are super enthusiastic about it still.
But again, I’m stupid, I know I’m stupid, and C++ has way too many features and convoluted behaviours which are hard for me to remember and reason about. It often feels like it makes me think more about the language problems than the actual problem I’m supposed to work on. It may say more about me than the language, but I do feel validated with comments like this.