Ah that’s way more progress than I thought! Last I heard they were still in “you’re wrong for wanting this” territory.

How are those namespaces getting on?

Using a function is strictly worse than figuring out the formatting at compile time (something Zig also does).

The derives are just shortcuts. You can write everything out long-hand like you would in C++ or Python too if you really want.

Honestly both of these complaints are essentially “why does Rust use macros to make writing code better/easier?”.

Honestly this looks like it sits in the useless middle ground between “proper CI that has all the features you expect” and “just write a Python/Deno script or whatever”. I can’t see what you gain.

Also you say “no painful YAML pipelines” but it uses YAML??

TCL & CMake are fully stringly typed. Both pretty terrible languages (though TCL can at least claim to be a clever hack that was taken far too seriously).

It is INT_MIN. Seems like a much more sensible value than 0 IMO.

Try interacting with anything that uses u64 and you’ll be a lot less happy!

Anyway JavaScript does have BigInt so technically you are choosing.

that insanity is how C and Intel handle NaN conversions.

It’s not actually quite as bad as the article says. While it’s UB for C, and it can return garbage. The actual x86 conversion instruction will never return garbage. Unfortunately the value it returns is 0x8000… whereas JS apparently wants 0. And it sets a floating point exception flag, so you still need extra instructions to handle it. Probably not many though.

Also in practice on a modern JS engine it won’t actually need to do this operation very often anyway.

Yeah. I think the smallest number of number types you can reasonably have is two - f64 and arbitrary precision integers types. One of the few good decisions Python made.

That’s not a network effect.

Maybe slightly, but it’s still way on the helping side.

They’re clearly not going to be able to afford $100m/year in free CI.

Relatively minor for source code forges.

The reasons everyone uses GitHub:

• Free, even for private repos. No ads.
• Free CI - this is huge. Nobody else does this because it costs Microsoft around $100m/year to provide.
• It’s quite good.

If anyone can ever compete with that then I doubt network effects will keep people there.

Terrible title. The article is about the risks of everyone using GitHub. That doesn’t mean GitHub is destroying the open source ecosystem. In fact it’s the complete opposite - GitHub massively helps the open source ecosystem. That’s why everyone uses it in the first place!

I wouldn’t expect the UI/UX to magically improve, in the same way that e.g. Audacity’s is, or Blender’s did back in the day.

LibreOffice is ancient and enormous. It would take a decent sized team several years to overhaul its UX.

code often contains backticks

I’ve never seen code contain three backticks though.

I guess your heading logic kind of makes sense but tbh I still hate it.

Very weird style. Inconsistent heading styles. Four tilde code blocks? That’s totally nonstandard. Why?

Yeah unfortunately these numbers don’t really allow any conclusions to be drawn at all.

Also they’re not really related to supply chain security which is more about deliberate subterfuge. I think the interesting stat there would be how many authors are being trusted typically for each crate.

because someone believed an ANSWER on a different question answered my question

Yeah that is actually their official position. Your question is duplicate if an answer elsewhere might answer it, which is clearly absurd. Essentially they think “what’s 1+3?” is a duplicate of “what’s 2+2?”.

I think fundamentally they gamified moderation too well, and for many people they turned the site into a mod-maxing game, which obviously makes it an abysmal place to be for normal users.

It isn’t really. This is based on slightly implausible statistics and an unusual definition of “growing”.

No, generally people are annoyed that you’re spending time paying off tech debt instead of piling on more.