Rust's strict ownership model isn't flexible enough sometimes (particularly when dealing with hardware concepts), so I consider it a "mostly good enough" abstraction that is a good default but should be circumvented sometimes.
I really like Rust, and I'll gladly accept if a language that advances its benefits appears. Just as Rust is available to avoid using C++, that language would be available to avoid using Rust. It's not a competition; it's pragmatism.
Rust has unsafe for the purpose of not requiring a magic compiler for all cases. It's not above-and-beyond the notion of augmenting an unsafe language with tooling; it just shifts the default mode of safety.
It's easier to focus on fewer representatives, and because the federal government has so much power (and then state governments), life-changing policies mainly come top-down. Power should instead flow bottom-up, with the top being the linchpin, but alas.
I'll say: respect the truth. That doesn't mean a lie should never be uttered, because a lie on one hand can affirm a greater truth on the other hand. (What is said must always be juxtaposed with what isn't said.) Moreover, being kind is not wholly contingent on speaking in some manner of (dis)honesty or (lack of) discretion. Being kind isn't the same as making people happy in the moment.
In this case, I think the grammar is just wrong: an em dash with spaces around it! Although I'm not so much of a stickler that I'd personally consider this to be a problem.
Rust is still young, so it's taking the opportunity to thoroughly explore its options. As it grows older, it will solidify its decisions, even if it means committing to something that will be broken in the future. I look forward to the day that it becomes legacy (with all love)!
The deciding factor on whether to believe someone should not be whether they believe themselves, but whether they are worth believing. A murderer who acts in good faith is still a murderer.
Of course, culture and technical design are both important for any language, but be specific. Despite the prevalence of tools that improve C's safety, writing C safely generally requires a culture of using those tools and other techniques. For better or worse, Rust's borrow checker is a clear demonstration of where Rust lies on the safety-freedom spectrum.
Before getting to research, I think a more honest attitude towards admitting motivated cognition in oneself and others is appropriate. I may give a spur-of-the-moment remark on a political situation, but at least if someone presses me, I will readily provide more insight on my biases and values. When I take the time to contemplate, I usually try to modify my eventual response to avoid undue bias altogether. Being reminded that motivated cognition is pervasive in all of us should reduce the unintentional-but-convenient faults in our cognition.
Rust's async is reminiscent of state machines, which are universal. The issues with the experience come from accidental complexity, in the language or the library ecosystem.
You are correct in the abstract, but concretely I contest how useful LLMs are for producing software. I don't doubt their usefulness in prototyping or, say, writing web apps, but I truly do not think they are revolutionary for me, or for software development as a whole.
You're naming and lambasting multiple different technologies and their communities without justifying why they are so bad. Few people use C without knowing about the threat of buffer overflows or invalid pointer dereferences, and C can be used productively in spite of these obvious flaws. Instead of trying to drive people away from what they do, if you seek understanding then you should allow others to justify their reasons. If you only test your understanding against your understanding, you're not making an assessment at all. You can find and talk to many smart people here and elsewhere, if you so desire.
Not to make a point of it either way, but judging a book by its cover can be useful if the credibility of the book's content alone is difficult to evaluate. That's why people care about degrees and other qualifications.
I was going to disagree, along the lines of the people bringing up Bret Victor or other modes of communication and learning, but I have long accepted that the written word has been one of the largest boons for learning in human history, so I guess I agree. Still, it'll be an interesting and worthwhile challenge to make a better medium with modern technology.
I like to be flexible with policies, so while I think "capabilities" should be the core model, using ACL mechanisms under the hood is valid. If the capability mechanism is very minimal, people can build mechanisms and policies on top that are specialized for different use cases. It's not about "capabilities vs. ACLs"; it's "use the right tool for the job".
So while resource revocation in general is a hard problem, anyone can come up and implement their clever scheme in my imagined world.
Lifetimes and types are different, but the part where they are generic is the same. I think of it as "who controls/decides the value of this parameter". It's a crucial part of understanding lifetimes, not just a misconception.
> The problem is that no-one can easily understand how their brain works compared to other people. People on both sides don't talk about it enough or openly enough. If you look at the science it quickly descends in to endless confusing/impenetrable psychiatric terminology.
It's not just how the "science" is conducted, or limited to a fixed number of sides. Everyone doesn't quite know what anyone else experiences. We all just throw around symbols, hoping someone gets what we mean by what we say, and assuming that we know what others mean by what they say. The meat of what we know and experience never gets transmitted faithfully to anyone.
To be certain, many people do have conditions that, say, I will never have. But that doesn't make me "normal" or those people "abnormal". The definition of a disorder by showing harm to living one's life is a good start, but fraught with the complexity of analyzing things in an implicit social context. If it seems that someone has a problem, I'll consider it a problem, not only if it seems sufficiently and officially abnormal.
At the same time, it's arguable that certain observations such as "commercialization and commoditization have become stronger" are true. We're certainly living in an era where a lot can change in a few decades.
I won't say that Kubernetes is great at scheduling, access control, and others, but mainstream OSes aren't superb either. General-purpose OSes are decent for many disparate groups of users but rarely satisfy any one.
Yeah, I'm honestly quite confused about the whole situation. There probably was some toxicity behind-the-scenes (maybe after the initial thread), but from who, I don't know. I think maybe the thread seemed polarized in everyone's minds and so it became so in their actions.
Vitamin D and sodium are examples out of a couple core nutrients, and I could list other nutrients such as sugar or fat too. So the rate is not excellent.
> How many errors do police make? Actuaries? Security researchers?
They make plenty of mistakes too. What's your point?
I agree that the discussion doesn't seem to be toxic on the whole, though not superb, although I don't know what happened following in terms of harassment, so that's up in the air for me.
I think a lot of the backlash for the GPL is unreasonable, and not really better than a lot of the backlash for permissive licenses, and furthermore I believe there are reasonable ideological opinions to prefer one or the other (though ideology isn't an excuse to be mean). But I concede that the person you responded to set a poor standard of discussion.
Just as people who strongly prefer permissive licenses deny copyleft licenses, this is the same in reverse. If you don't want to touch GPL projects, then don't.