Yes, that's quite expensive.
1,199 karma · joined December 1, 2014
https://github.com/arximboldi/immer
https://github.com/arximboldi/lager
https://github.com/arximboldi/zug
Also, I very agree with what @jasode has said. C++ will be interesting for you if you can do interesting things in C++. That is the main reason I use it: there are certain domains where I work: professional music software, graphics, film, robotics, etc. where there are no solid alternatives (maybe Rust/Nim/Zig if you are very adventurous). This kind of software is actually really cool, it's creative and enhances artists's lives and does not live in magical "clouds" but runs on your machine. The language is imperfect and complicated but working in these domains is really cool and it makes the experience of taming the beast of C++ enjoyable :)
https://github.com/arximboldi/ewig
It's design is covered in these talks:
- Postmodern immutable data structures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPhpelUfu8Q
- The most valuable values: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oBx_NbLghY
But I simply find the whole chat ecosystem so depressing. A few years ago at least I could chat with Google Talk people via Jabber. It is really absurd that instant messaging is not federated like email. Of course there is one explanation: while Email was invented in the 70s at research institutions with goals beyond profit, IM already started in the 90s with companies trying to capitalize their user-base with vendor lock-in... (ICQ, MSN, etc.). Sad, sad, sad.
Since their acquisition they have just been going downhill. I've been planning to move all my projects to Github Actions for a while. This is the "drop that overlfows the glass" as we say in Spanish, I'm putting everything aside tomorrow to migrate all my public and private projects to Github Actions.
A couple of years ago I wrote a text-editor to have a realistic example of what I consider a nice modern architecture using immutable data-structures. In the README there is also a link to a talk where I cover some of the design and structure:
https://github.com/arximboldi/ewig
Libraries that it uses:
In the context of C++ some of us have been calling these programming/design principles "Value Oriented Design". Some talks on the topic:
- Most Valuable Values (Juan Pedro Bolívar) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oBx_NbLghY
- Squaring the circle, value oriented design in an object oriented system (Juanpe) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2-FRFEx8CA
- Objects vs Values: Value Oriented Programming in an Object Oriented World (Tony van Eerd) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JGH_SWURrI
Do you know the tool "git blame"? (You can also use it with "git gui blame", from Github, or from many text editors). It tells you which commit last changed each line of code. Then you can click and see the surrounding history and context.
If the git history is "well written" this is an invaluable tool for understanding the code and how it came to be the way it is! Super useful when working on large code-bases where lots of different people collaborate.
It doesn't seem to be working great though, at least on the page. I end up making a living through ad-hoc client work, which sometimes supports the open-source side as well.
Does someone know if WebAssembly support is available on the open-source Qt?
Also: is it one of those features that is a pain in the ass to set up from CMake instead of QMake?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPhpelUfu8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vohGJjGxtJQ
The writer uses a very narrow perspective and just "assumes" all this can be generalized. One of the most recurring topics in the book is "complexity", but it is just introduced with a narrow one sentence tautological definition without offering any interesting discussion. All kinds of assumptions are taken for granted and not discussed.
So overall, the book reads so far like a bland collection of "do this, don't do that blog-posts". Papers like "Out of the tarpit", speakers like Rich Hickey, etc. offer much more interesting discussions on the topic of design and complexity, and are definitely more argumentative and "philosophical".
I even feel bad for writing something in such a negative vibe about a book. But really its pretentious title lead to such disappointment...
The problems are more complex and historical. The EU economic crisis have been abused by right-wingers to argue that we have a too heavy social system. In fact, the demolition of the social system in the south is precisely preventing it from really leaving the crisis. I want higher taxes if it comes, for example, with free university, like in Germany.
But I don't blame them, since I understand that their goal is to provide a sensible and consistent user interface for general users and that I am a total exception :-)
And while I also agree that the sample from Tinder is a very restricted view, and in general I also prefer meeting people directly in the real world. What I found interesting about Tinder is, precisely, that I allowed me to directly see how women outside of my social circles and spaces I frequent present themselves. While I still live in a hipster urban area, I found that so many of these examples of very traditional views about courtship---all this "I am a price" logic I mentioned in the parent post is not so much a sign of power, but I see it as more of a conservative view that puts women in a passive role. It can be frustrating for men, but probably it is also damaging for women, and to me showed, somewhat, that the road to better gender equality and fluid roles is a long one.