We evaluated Extism and concluded that it did basically nothing that WASI and the component model didn't already do out of the box. Was your experience different?
WASI is the best format for code submitted by users, entirely untrusted, which is in principle of any complexity but expected to be pretty simple. It works on any platform, in any environment, with extreme and direct control over its access to every resource and its ability to execute at all. Wasmtime's "fuel" feature is not something you can do with containers, and if you can do it with VMs then I don't know about it, but VMs are behemoths for the task of executing a simple function that would in an alternate universe be CEL.
The present component model is "simple and stable". It is presently providing "interoperability between different ecosystems" and has been for years. It has basically nothing in common with CORBA. All the major problems with the Unix design they ran into that caused them to switch to a component model haven't vanished; the component model is still the best way of solving WASM's major complications that traditional C-based designs don't have. C-based designs, in general, are not better just because they came first; if you were designing systems programming from scratch, you'd want something like WIT (proof: Microsoft has done this twice now).
I don't think any of this relates to the post it's replying to. I appreciate the totally failed attempt to psychoanalyze my emotions, though. If you think I'm 'confused, surprised, and angry', you don't seem to be as good at the emotions thing as you keep acting like you are.
None of the languages you mentioned support this 'eager_fallback' feature, no. I am not stuck on any one application of the feature (you'll notice I referred both to the individual application and the general feature, and then you ignored it), but rather you are overindexing on generic returns, which are insufficient for what you're describing in a load-bearing way. Rust supports what C# supports, on the subject of generics (in ways germane to this feature), and what Rust lacks, C# also lacks. So your reference to C# supporting this is false. The feature you are proposing exists in zero languages on the planet. The thing you can get, top-generic returns, exist in Rust and the languages you mentioned, and don't accomplish your named goal at all because you can't use them as a method receiver without disambiguating them.
If someone spouts untruths, that is a failing of theirs. Talking about how there's emotions of theirs that back this promulgation of untruths, emotions which you could understand if you tried, is putting the cart before the horse. First express things that are not trivially false, then I will try to understand what you mean by it.
Why is the guy being rigorous worthy of criticism, but the guys being idiots aren't? Did you post any similar calm-down comments in either of the HN threads on the original attacks?
In none of the languages you mentioned do stdlib functions either return an iterator or a list depending on whether you feed it into an iterator operation; in none of the languages you mentioned can a fully-generic return as a method receiver be inferred by the name of the method. It has nothing to do with how well you explained it; it just doesn't exist. Every single thing you are complaining about exists in all of the languages you brought up, although Perl does a small portion of that in some cases depending on the variable sigil (ie still not guessed).
Your post is a restricted special case of "it would be great if any old sequence of characters compiled correctly and the compiler just read my mind". Wouldn't it just, but the rules of programming languages exist for more purposes than just annoying the user.
You may notice no language on the planet does this. That is because it is bad. Type guesstimation is a great way of ensuring random problems crop up in random places where they aren't expected and of making the typechecker much slower and more prone to unresolvability (see Swift's multi-minute compiles). All to save you from having to learn what an iterator is, in case you come from a language where lists are more common than iterators; the experience of being scared by a type, and then discovering that the type is not scary in chapter 13.2, is not actually worth making the simple type system instead staggeringly complicated.
In my experience working with newbies, the alterations Brown makes to the chapters on borrowing are strictly worse. It is entirely focused on ramming the difference between the stack and the heap down your throat, which has nothing to do with ownership and borrowing, and newbies will frequently say that they are extremely confused by the chapter, then sigh in relief upon reading the original version. Just use the official guide, nobody has improved upon it yet. https://doc.rust-lang.org/book
And then you look it up once, and now you know what it means forever. By contrast, the former expression is much wider with more going on, and furthermore you can't skim past it being sure nothing funny is going on because it may or may not be a range compatible with the latter form.
By 2021, we'll have completely abandoned light switches. We'll just use an app on our phones to turn off the light in the bedroom, or perhaps request out loud for Alexa to do so. The future is the Internet of Things.
I think this article is too soft a criticism by half. The iPhone defining the mobile era was not an artefact of the Apple logo being on it. Every bit of Apple's relentless productization went into what features the phone actually had and how they were integrated. This guy, in 2006, would have been telling Apple 'just release a feature phone like BlackBerry does, so you can define the era of feature phones like you did MP3 players'.
Thank you for repeating yourself in exactly the way I was criticizing without really reading the criticisms. So, once more with feeling: Radicle does not offer the Cargo crate registry protocol. Radicle does not offer anything to do with crate hosting that a generic Git remote doesn't. If you want a crate repository like crates.io, you do not want Radicle. The best crate repository software is Cloudflare's Freighter, but if you were to implement some sort of distributed version, that's also an option, but it wouldn't be called Radicle. If you just want the Git support that Radicle offers, you can do so just fine without Radicle; it is generic Git remote support, and you can declare Git dependencies in Cargo.toml from Sourcehut or Codeberg or whatever. Radicle is a product that puts issue/PR tracking on top of Git. It does not have anything to do with what separates git dependencies from crates.io dependencies, it does not have anything to do with automatically mirroring existing hosts, it does not offer anything to the git dependency experience, and it does not offer anything to the registry dependency experience.
> Crates.io has not moved away from Github-only authentication, and got into the habit of yelling at people who complained about it.
This was me updating you on the present state of the world. Replying with the previous state of the world, as though this is somehow new and better information, without even looking up whether it was still true, is a level of deliberate ignorance I can't fathom displaying on purpose. Again: crates.io is presently in the process of moving away from GitHub-only authentication.
But after enough people run it, that disappears. They implement crowdsourced trust, because it isn't a rent extraction exercise but actual concern about malware.
This sounds completely made up. The medieval taxman has no idea how much gold you have squirreled away, and even finding everyone to tax them was hard enough. Most peasant taxes were based on productive land and observable yields thereof, and the rest were import/export duties. IE income and not wealth, because nobody was stupid enough to implement a negative growth rate until the 21st century (unless they were actively trying to loot holdings for redistribution, e.g. varlık vergisi)
Serious. And although 'seeing yourself as a customer' certainly makes things slightly better, I'm also referring just to the amount of cash that enters the coffers once it's no longer a tip jar per se. It is open source on the subject of copyright, but as was described in an article on here the other day, open-source doesn't mean community. By positioning the community aspect as something you have to buy into to enter, you end up (a) selling a product for cash without compromising open source and (b) ensuring everyone you deal with is serious. It's like the Red Hat model but workable at the lower end of software at the expense of lower upside.
America produces many things more valuable than the NFL, is the difference. LaLiga is presently the single most valuable brand in Spain. When e.g. Google asks low-polarization parts of the government for things, it frequently gets them.
The parent comment just says it'll perform similar to how past similarly-shaped things performed, without saying what that past performance is. If that implies pessimism, that's not HN's fault.
The standard complaint of pointless type errors that static type analysis would catch has nothing to do with weak typing, nor does the other one about unreliable listing of available ops in your editor by pressing `.` and looking at the autocomplete list. If you think the only thing people think is wrong about dynamic typing is JS `==` then you are swinging at a strawman from a decade ago.
The context is that Jones blew up the court process every chance he got, setting a new record for contempt fining. The most important piece was refusing to comply with discovery (his lawyer was so bad-behaved here he ended up with a disciplinary suspension). As a result Jones received a default judgement, i.e. the plaintiffs win by default and he doesn't get to argue his case. This also means the plaintiffs get everything they were asking for. And then for some reason he didn't even enter an argument during the damages calculation phase, so the jury just went with whatever the plaintiffs said.
That is what the touchbar did. It doesn't take two steps. You motion like you're dragging the volume button and the slider appears under you, already being dragged.
Volume and brightness are exactly the place the touchbar shines: tap and start dragging and you're adjusting a slider, which is much better than mashing a button.
Twitter has become a lot better since people who say truly insane things like this have left. What on earth does Twitter have to do with child pornography? What kind of misinformation have you been reading?
This very conveniently allows one to pick any actions they like regardless of stated goals or principles. There's very little it couldn't be used to apply to. "I'm principled but only when it's easy" isn't much of a statement.