gnull

One thing I think I missed is that Newsraft is younger and simpler (I assume, at this stage it all fits in the head of one developer). Maybe this is where my estimate fails.

Anyway, I wish you success with your project! (Even if you're building it with an unorthodox language.)

I say this each time someone wants to rename something for social justice reasons. Renaming is a lot of hussle, and if you decide to go for it you better know what exactly it is that you're buying with it.

  \DeclarePairedDelimiter\abs{\lvert}{\rvert}

  \newcommand\kek[0]{kak}

It's like if someone said the Elon Musk is bad because he invested X amount of money into Y, and I'm better because I didn't (suppose I'm broke and I spend my days in a basement playing games). The "I'm better part" is flawed because we don't know what I would do if I was given his choice.

And also doesn't Christianity give some good excuses to question or review these? Especially, considering that New Testament builds up on top of the Old Testament. I'm asking about the stuff around the quotes you've shown (otherwise we could fall for confirmation bias).

Please understand me correctly. I'm not saying Christianity doesn't have cruel or bad things. I'm saying it doesn't give one concrete, final, unchangeable set of rules. With Christian rules, it's easier to find excuse to augment or re-interpret them. I'm not saying there's no rules.

> Lots of Muslims do not believe that Shariah law should be applied.

I feel that one big difference of Islam is that it makes the rules very explicit, from how the government should be organized to the last detail of how you should wash your hands (and how often). Christianity, on the other hand, has very few concrete regulations, but instead a ton of metaphysical, mystical and ethical things from which people are trying to deduce those regulations.

So Christianity was easier to steer away from being a concrete manual for life to being a philosophical thing, a matter of choice that people who live within secular ethical framework can voluntarily practice. My question is, if you do the same to Islam will it still be Islam given how deeply the practical instructions are ebedded in it?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I have a rather rudimentary education in both topics.

In the end, you will have one of the two encompass the other. Either you have a secular country living by democratic, progressive law which allows people to be Muslims modulo this. Or you have a Muslim country living by Shariah law, but tolerating secular non-believers in it.

First won't work because Muslims (in the traditional sense) won't tolerate some other framework encompassing their worldview. They have taboo topics nobody should ever question, and secular ideology based on science will question things.

And second won't work because Shariah law gives very concrete directions on dealing with non-believers.

https://docs.haskellstack.org/en/stable/

Linus Torvalds is one of them. And he is a hardcore C programmer, he was strongly against C++ in the Kernel when people were suggesting that.

> Sure, but there are a few simple patterns when used throughout that are quite reliable.

And yet, C/C++ programs segfault all the time. Memory corruption vulnerabilities are some of the most severe and common ones. There was a submission here, on HN, about it. There was something about Google adopting Rust on Android precisely because of this — in case you want to find it.

I've been a C (Kernel) programmer in the past. And I've quit precisely because it took too much of my time to debug things that a good language should normally detect for you. Now, my main languages are Rust and Haskell, and the compiler helps me eliminate a huge class of bugs. If it compiles, most of the time it works correctly.

> Every C program can theoretically [+] be compiled to be the same as a Rust binary, but not every Rust program could be compiled to be the same as a C binary [1].

What should I be looking for in [1]? And what do you mean here? "Theoretically", you could implement every possible C program in Assembly, but that's hardly an argument against C. We should be thinking here in terms of things that a programmer normally would implement in reasonable amount of time. A knowledgeable Rust programmer is by orders of magnitude more productive than a C programmer with the same experience.

The discussion we're having was already had many times here. I'm just repeating the standard arguments.

Rust also has more freedom to perform optimizations on your code than C, because Rust has so much more information about it. For example, in C, a carefully placed "restrict" keyword can speed up your program a lot. But if you're not careful enough and you fail to satisfy the "restrict" invariant, you get undefined behavior. In Rust, things are "restrict" by default due to borrow checker and the invariant is ensured in compile time.

The argument for C against Rust just doesn't stand a chance if you remember C's undefined behavior. C is full of it. Can you list all the conditions when it can occur in C?

> I use it quite regularly.

I meant using the OP program, not C language.

As replied in another comment, here it is. Enjoy!

Sure, here it is. Enjoy! It can do all the basic things, but stuff like error handling is rough (it will panic if it fails to parse something).

> Rust will not fix your poorly designed code

Nobody said it will. But segfaults hardly come from poor design. They come from accidental mistakes, lack of static analysis, and gotchas that your language offers.

> now it is harder to develop

Only if you're a C programmer who doesn't know Rust.

> and runs slower

This is plan false. Please back it up.

> it seems like somebody quite capable of writing C safely

Try using it for a week, and count for me how many times it segfaults on your face. (That is not to diminish Grigory's work, which I have nothing against.)

> Third-party Apps

> Free Account: Up to 64 sites, doesn't show the full text of the article

> Premium Subscription

> No desktop app

Really?

Newsboat's authors are rewriting it in Rust. They concluded (last time I checked) that C and some early design decisions were bad for its development now and they want to rewrite it in Rust because this is something that can be done gradually (and, I think, because they liked Rust). Before they settled down with Rust, they even considered Haskell, but Rust won.

Surprising that this project is in C. Given a chance to start fresh, why not choose a better language? Even Rust, I think, is unnecessarily low-level for an applied, not performance-critical program like an RSS reader. That's why I chose Haskell. Any other high-level programming language would be a better choice than C.

> In September 2019, Stallman resigned from his position as president of the FSF and from his position as a visiting scientist at MIT after controversial comments he made about the allegations of sexual assault against Jeffrey Epstein resurfaced online. Stallman had previously written that the allegations against Epstein were a "gossip campaign" and that some of the women who accused Epstein of assault were "entirely willing" participants. Stallman's comments were widely criticized, and his resignation from MIT and the FSF was seen as a response to the backlash.

The same twisted representation that most media gave. While in fact, Stallman, in fact, never said the victims were intirelt willing.

Look at Sweden, it's been trying really hard and dumping lots of money into gender equality, but there's still very few women in tech. The fraction of women among Iran's CS graduates is greater than Sweden's. And, ironically, plenty of those Iranian women (I'm saying this offhand) go to do PhD in Sweden, to bring up the "gender balance" of CS departments that Sweden is so concerned about.

I'm really unsure whether society is easier to engineer than biology.

There's also some effort required on the reader's part here. You should dig through some bad phrasing and for each statement that the writer makes, ask yourself, "what's the strongest interpretation of this that can be backed up?" A good reader tries to get the most out of it, and not discard it because of the form (how would Seneca read it?).

The way I read his statement is that woke agenda does not deserve so much trust, and there's plenty of reasons to question Google's official view on gender-equality; that having an opposing view is a valid position, which makes you neither a foil-hat-flat-earth psycho, nor a misogynist, nor a bad person. There's enough uncertainly in this question to make both opinions valid, and allow people to pick the one they like. And for woke people, this statement is enough of a reason to "cancel" someone.

Thinking that he insists on his view being the only right one is a bit of a strawman argument. I say "a bit" because I admit that he chose a rather provoking manner to make his statement, but I still say "strawman" because you could easily read it differently. I assume he did it because his opponents also do that, and it may have been an emotional choice to some extent. And, as I said, if we've established that there's enough uncertainty in this question to make it a matter of preference (for now, until the science gives us a definitive answer), it's ok to advertise the choice you prefer in an emotional and provoking manner — which I think is also one of the goals of the memo.

To summarize, I think there's some good things to extract from there if you put in effort. And for a non-expert, he did ok of a job writing it.

> asking for trouble...

It doesn't justify what they did to him, I don't understand why you'd even mention this. "She wore a short skirt, so she asked for harassment" — literally the same victim-blaming technique.

It's not that effect being caused by upbringing makes it somehow unimportant, or unworthy of being there.