If there is no string concatenation operator (for run time), how do you concatenate strings at run time with Zig?
Depends on what you work on, I guess, but in my area of expertise string operations like concatenation are bread-and-butter.
475 karma · joined December 26, 2020
Depends on what you work on, I guess, but in my area of expertise string operations like concatenation are bread-and-butter.
For BitBucket\GitHub\GitLab and for workflows enabled by them Git is just an underlying technology. Some of the functionality of these services is implemented using Git commands very clumsily. Some Git commands don't make sense or are dangerous in such environment\workflow. Yet Git interface is fully exposed to the users of these systems.
(Despite your statements and example, Git commands are not dangerous in the sense that they can destroy information already pushed to the repo. However, as your example demonstrated, they are dangerous in the sense that to recover from them requires expert knowledge and capabilities.)
Git was designed to for truly distributed development, and it is great for that. A lot of projects use it though for a centralized development. Git the software is fully capable to support such development with proper configuration, but has arguably bad defaults for it, and the existing solutions seem to be half-assed (to tell the truth, I hate GitHub, but won't go into this right now).
For me in my work and personal use the fully distributed character of Git is not important, but being able to work offline is, crucially. I know it is important issue for many developers. With working from home being more and more widespread I'd think this issue becomes more important, not less. Not being tethered to your good internet connection, or being able to work during an outage is really cool :-)
(Before Git I would have 2 VCS applications installed on my work laptop, one working against central database that required internet connection, one fully local, with separate local database. Synchronizing them was a constant chore, a significant part of it I was not able to automate and had to do manually. Sill, it was worthwhile price for being able to work offline.)
The fact that they don't seem to fully understand working of Git (not on the level of Git developers, just the level of Git administrators/users) does not inspire trust in their competence to create a Git alternative.
(A honest question, I start to think that I'd like to learn more on this language)
I was just exposing a flaw in _your_ logic :-) You said:
> Existential threat means things can’t get worse
And I disagree, things can get a lot worse. You know, like replacing a threat with certainty...
For example (again, IIRC), it allowed directories to have hard links. Al Viro was adamantly against it, showing that this potentially creates some very serious problems. In particular, it allows for cycles in the directory graph (it's no more a tree), and Viro has shown that detecting or preventing such cycles may by prohibitively expensive, and undetected they would cause any program that does directory walking (like search) to loop infinitely.
This was not the only problematic feature, just the one I remember more vividly (in part, because of Al Viro's caustic argument style :-) ).
Is this use of ML standard in the industry?
Title case was invented when there were much limited typographical options than now, to emphasize, well, titles. On a web page, there are so many better ways to do it, there is no reason to preserve the archaic convention.
To my eye it does not even look that nice...
I for one also thought it was Microsoft Teams in the heading.
If a heading misleads even a fraction of readership, for no apparent reason (what is the benefit of having a title in Title Case?), maybe it's better that the heading is changed, no?
I think Git on Windows uses forward slashes, but colon is retained, like this:
directory = C:/Program Files (x86)/MyProject
Now, I don't know how difficult and expensive it is in practice. But as a "baseload" geothermal looks very good. Does not depend on weather at al...
> Outputs of simulations would be referred to as "findings"
Yeah, a recent brouhaha about creating (!) a traversable wormhole in a quantum computer comes to mind...
They have to: there is way too much information produced. So the triggers try to identify "trivial" events and dismiss them immediately, relaying only the ones that are may be somewhat unusual/unexpected.
Essentially, the triggers are computers with highly specialized programs. Very smart people work on this, and supposedly they figure out problems with triggers before they affect the results of experiments...
The one I found the funniest/crziest is "Bug reports were blown off by saying that they didn't matter because the "scientists" just ran their simulation lots of times and took the average", because this is exactly how some scientists I know think.
This thinking is not limited to software. My father was by trade involved in building experimental apparatus ("hardware") for scientific experiments. Often they were designed by scientists themselves. He told me about absurd contraptions which never could measure what they were intended to measure, and extreme reluctance/defensiveness/arrogance he often met when trying to report it and give some feedback...
> Research has shown that dolphins are able to sleep with only half of their brain at a time, a phenomenon known as unihemispheric slow-wave sleep (USWS). During USWS, one hemisphere of the brain remains active while the other hemisphere rests. This allows dolphins to continue swimming, surfacing for air, and avoiding predators while still getting the rest they need.
Try that! :-)
The problem with this: you need to create a new standard, get everybody to agree to it, and get busy scientists who are concentrating on content and not representation to adapt this new standard in their writing, essentially requiring them to change their habits and spend extra time on writing (which many of them hate), for no obvious gain from their point of view.
I am not saying it's not possible, or not worth it, but it is not easy and simple either.
Being able to link directly to the relevant part is irrelevant (pardon my pun!). Such links are machine-readable, not human-readable. Scientific text need visual citations and being able to name the referred part for reading comprehension.
And Harvard-style citations (AKA name-date) exist for a reason; when your read a paper even in interactive format it helps when you can recognize citations to certain papers and not having to click on them or memorize numbers.
Other styles have their own advantages and disadvantages; that's why they all exist and used by this or that journal, and no consensus on a single "right" style was ever reached.
An often cited example: what is f(x+y) ? Is it function f with x+y as its argument, or constant f multiplied by (x+y) ? TeX gives you no clue.
Or what is this i in your equation? Is it an index variable, or a square root from minus one?
You as a human figure this out by looking at the context and using domain knowledge. So does a "TeX to HTML/MathML converter". It is ultimately built on heuristics, and cannot be otherwise.
That's why I said basically "for the same reason a paper page is not interactive". It was designed this way!
The goal of TeX was to generate beautiful printed page. The need for semantic structure was not anticipated. To do semantics you need a "semantic version of MathML", or a language used by Wolfram's product, etc.
Pretty much for the same reason you cannot press a word and get a pop-up dictionary definition in a paper book.