The “‘modern’ development stack” we used at my school when I was in a CS program was C++98 or something, compiled using gcc directly. This was in the last decade. It technically wasn’t C!
But we did use C in my computer engineering classes so I guess they technically did teach it. I feel very fortunate that I haven’t needed to use it since then.
Pushing HTML even further, one could say it’s a declarative programming language that programs a UI in a mostly-stateless manner (inputs aren’t really stateless but you can argue the state is provided by the UI rather than managed by HTML).
I’m not sure I’d make this leap myself though, I have a hard time classifying it (or any other markup language) as a PL. As far as I am aware, you can’t really program a state machine with pure HTML, though you can accept inputs and return outputs at least.
Would it work to write the query as a common table expression, then select your columns from that table and join it with a count(*) aggregation of the table?
I think it’s good to document why things are done, but extracting things out into another function is just documenting what is being done with extra steps. This also comes with a number of problems:
// or # would have made the code just as readable.If those functions are huge units of work or pretty complex, I can agree. For most cases though, a simple code comment should do to explain what’s going on?
While impressive, a minifier can bring it down to 1 line of JS! I do like that this can function as a reference for making simple canvas-based games though.
I also avoid query syntax generally because I find it hard to map to method syntax with more complex queries. It’s a cool concept though, despite it being painful to use.
For library code - yes, you’d usually want to direct users to the correct way of using the library, so you’d be more likely to come across fallible build functions or a bunch of type parameters to constrain when it can be called.
For applications - honestly, it’s your code, so do what makes sense to you. Using a build function can help you ensure your settings were fully configured before using them, but it’s up to you if that’s the direction that makes the most sense to you. One benefit is you only need to perform the check once, but the downside is having another “built” type that you need to keep in sync with the original type. You can also look at libraries like derive_builder if you want to have your builder generated for you to avoid needing to manually update two separate types.
C# also has a built-in query language (LINQ). I think it might just be simpler to group them together to avoid nuances like these, though I don’t think anyone would complain about not seeing LINQ on a query language list either.
I wonder how many people learned Lua for this reason (CC and friends).
Some thoughts on the comments on Discord:
I can understand most of the arguments against Discord, and there are some problematic communies on it of course, but I’m not sure I understand how using Discord over an alternative puts someone more at risk of exposure to those communities. People are free to join and leave servers at will, so is the issue that these servers built around FOSS projects have toxic communities? If so, how would being on any other platform solve this?
Speaking from experience, just about all the servers I’m in have some kind of “no politics” rule, a very inclusive “be nice” rule, and a pronoun selector. Maybe it’s just the servers I join, but hate speech gets people banned pretty quickly.
Anyway, there are plenty of arguments that can be made about discoverability, lack of control, privacy, and the non-FOSS nature of the platform to justify its presence on that list.
Speaking as someone with a MTF close friend and NB spouse, but the term used in the article is the term everyone around me used when I was growing up. That term may be obsolete now, and if so, the author simply needs to be informed. There’s no need to assume they meant harm by it.
If they knowingly used a term that may offend, then that’s of course a separate issue.
In addition to 1:many, many:many, and many:1 (which is just 1:many but looking at it in the other direction), you also occasionally see 1:1, for example if you want to augment a table with additional data. This might be done by having your foreign key also be your primary key in the augmenting table, since that would also enforce a uniqueness constraint on the FK as a result.
Also, probably unnecessary to mention, but you can also have “0 or 1” relationship (meaning one side is optional but capped at 1). These are technically separated from “1” relationships usually when you get into all the theory. An example of this might be a “0:1” relationship using the above augment table, but where the augmenting table isn’t required to have a row for every row in the augmented table. (A 1:1 constraint can be enforced, for example, by having an additional FK in the augmented table pointing to the augmenting table.)
Inline consts also let you perform static assertions, like asserting a type parameter is not a zero-sized type, or a const generic is non-zero. This is actually pretty huge since some checks can be moved from runtime to compile time (not a lot of checks, but some that were difficult or impossible to do at compile time before).
Not quite a “gaming PC” since, at least if they’re using something like Nvidia’s Hopper GPUs (or relying on another service that does), they’re not designed for gaming (and in the price range of $10k-$100kish), buuut if you ignore the finer details then fundamentally it’s basically like that. They’d send the image to their “very expensive gaming PC server” where the inferencing would be done.
I’ve seen this in a few places on desktop, and I have no clue why it’s even a feature. I’m not aware of anyone using it anywhere (although to be fair I haven’t thought to ask).
As for why it’s enabled by default, probably for visibility. The easiest way to get people to use a feature is to make them use it and make them explicitly disable it (if even an option). For AI training, they could theoretically just capture typing data and messages regardless of if the feature is enabled/disabled anyway.
I’d imagine doing this for a simple website project only for npm to tell me there are over 2000 packages installed. Donating even $1 to each of them would be unsustainable (as myself, for a company that’s another story). I think what we need is a more scalable way of supporting these projects. For example, should is_even get the same amount of support as zod?
Maybe it’s just me, but the majority of programmers I’ve worked with don’t even know how to quit vim, let alone use it for programming. I wonder if the demographic who completed the survey accurately represents all the people who use Rust, or only those most passionate about the language. It’s also possible that ~30% of Rust programmers do actually use vim (and friends) and represent a different group of programmers than the ones I’ve worked with (who use more traditional programming languages).
Nothing against vim of course. vim is a great editor.
2024 will be the year of the Rust desktop, just watch.
Reject assembly, return to machine code. Assembly is an inaccurate projection of what the machine truly does. Writing the binary by hand hardens us, and brings us closer to the computer. We better understand what our machine is doing when we calculate our jumps by hand.