![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/1f7e5534-88d3-4d6f-bc57-7cda9553890f.webp)
The quote (and the associated discussion) is such an important part of Rust and why I love this language so much. Anything that can be automated should at one point be automated reliably, and the sooner the better.
The quote (and the associated discussion) is such an important part of Rust and why I love this language so much. Anything that can be automated should at one point be automated reliably, and the sooner the better.
Thank you! I didn’t realized that I was using my lemmy account and not my mastodon account.
I absolutely agree that method extraction can be abused. One should not forget that locality is important. Functionnal idioms do help to minimise the layer of intermediate functions. Lamda/closure helps too by having the function much closer to its use site. And local variables can sometime be a better choice than having a function that return just an expression.
Good advice, clear, simple and to the point.
Stated otherwise: “whenever you need to add comments to an expression, try to use named intermediate variables, method or free function”.
I never understood why python won agaist ruby. I find ruby an even better executable pseudo code language than python.
Read your own code that you wrote a month ago. For every wtf moment, try to rewrite it in a clearer way. With time you will internalize what is or is not a good idea. Usually this means naming your constants, moving code inside function to have a friendly name that explain what this code does, or moving code out of a function because the abstraction you choose was not a good one. Since you have 10 years of experience it’s highly possible that you already do that, so just continue :)
If you are motivated I would advice to take a look to Rust. The goal is not really to be able to use it (even if it’s nice to be able able to write fast code to speed up your python), but the Rust compiler is like a very exigeant teacher that will not forgive any mistakes while explaining why it’s not a good idea to do that and what you should do instead. The quality of the errors are crutial, this is what will help you to undertand and improve over time. So consider Rust as an exercice to become a better python programmer. So whatever you try to do in Rust, try to understand how it applies to python. There are many tutorials online. The official book is a good start. And in general learning new languages with a very different paradigm is the best way to improve since it will help you to see stuff from a new angle.
I wasn’t clear enough. But in a contry where the sun rise at 20:00, the weekday looks like:
And phares like "let’s meet on Tuesday“ without hour indication could either mean end of day 1 or start of day 2. Likewise "let’s meet the 20th” (assuming the 20th is a Tuesday) could either mean end of day 1 or beggining of day 2.
–
And alternative be to have
Which solve the issue of "let’s meet on Tuesday”, but not “let’s meet the 20th”.
The issue is that the notion of “tomorrow” becomes quite hard to express. If it’s 20:00 when the sun rose, when does tomorrow starts? In 5 hours ?
Interesting idea indeed. I’ve never used async yet, but I’m always surprised at how the problem space seems to be much more complicated than what it initially looks like.
You shouldn’t, it’s short and interesting
I would have liked a link to the LKLM thread. Usually they are quite informative
I use a 42 key layout modified from bépo (french dvorak inspired layout) with the altgr layer of ergol. Go check this altgr layer it’s awesome for programming, and there is a version compatible for qwerty and lafayette.
╭╌╌╌╌╌┰─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┰─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┬─────┰╌╌╌╌╌┬╌╌╌╌╌╮
┆ ┃ ¹ │ ² │ ³ │ ⁴ │ ⁵ ┃ ⁶ │ ⁷ │ ⁸ │ ⁹ │ ⁰ ┃ ┆ ┆
┆ ┃ ₁ │ ₂ │ ₃ │ ₄ │ ₅ ┃ ₆ │ ₇ │ ₈ │ ₉ │ ₀ ┃ ┆ ┆
╰╌╌╌╌╌╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌┤
· ┃ │ ≤ │ ≥ │ *¤ │ ‰ ┃ *^ │ │ × │ *´ │ *` ┃ ┆ ┆
· ┃ @ │ < │ > │ $ │ % ┃ ^ │ & │ * │ ' │ ` ┃ ┆ ┆
· ┠─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂╌╌╌╌╌┼╌╌╌╌╌┤
· ┃ │ ⁽ │ ⁾ │ │ ≠ ┃ */ │ ± │ — │ ÷ │ *¨ ┃ ┆ ┆
· ┃ { │ ( │ ) │ } │ = ┃ \ │ + │ - │ / │ " ┃ ┆ ┆
╭╌╌╌╌╌╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂─────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼─────╂╌╌╌╌╌┴╌╌╌╌╌╯
┆ ┃ *~ │ │ │ – │ ┃ ¦ │ ¬ │ *¸ │ │ ┃ ·
┆ ┃ ~ │ [ │ ] │ _ │ # ┃ | │ ! │ ; │ : │ ? ┃ ·
╰╌╌╌╌╌┸─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┸─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┴─────┚ · · · · · ·
Yeah, this make sence
It’s also what I understood from what I read but I assume it was just a poor choice of word. Debug symbols are way too important for debugging to be stripped by default.
vim can have IDE-like capabilities thanks to lsp and tree-sitter. That’s a real game changer and is quite easy to set-up with something like kickstart.nvim.
If you have references explain why and how that it’s easier to port C to a new architecture by creating a new compiler from scratch than to either create a backend for llvm (and soon gcc) or to create a minimal wasm executor (like what zig is doing) to this new architecture I’m interested. And of course I talking about new architectures because it’s much easier to recreate something that as already be done before.
I’m not familiar with C tooling, but I have done multiple projects in C++ (in a professionnel environnement) and AFAIK the tooling is the same. Tooling to C++ is a nightmare, and that’s and understatement. Most of the difficulty is self inflicted like not using cmake/meson but a custom build system, relying on system library instead of using Conan or vcpkg, not using smart-pointers,… but adding basically anything (LSP, code coverage, a new dependency, clang-format, clang-tidy, …) is horrible in those environments. And if you compare the quality of those tools to the one of other language, they are not even close. For exemple the lint given by clang-tidy to the one of Rust clippy.
If it took no more than an hour to add any of those tools to a legacy C project, then yes it would be disingenuous to not compare C + tooling with Rust, but unfortunately it’s not.
With Bram Moolenaar death, I sincerely think that vim will no longer be able to play catch-up with nvim. Bram Moolenaar did an amazing job with nvim, but with its death I think that vim is going to be an editor of the past, just like vi is an editor of the past. And nvim is its successor since its where the developers have moved.
I never had to use this estimate in front of a client, but if I had, I would decompose it first before giving the total estimate. If there is about 10 items to do per button, so 10 buttons would be a hundred complexe tasks. So let say that it take an hour per task, but since we are fast we can do 10 a day. So suddenly 10 working days, or said otherwise 2 weeks don’t seems unrealistics for this apparently simple 10 buttons task.
This post from 2022 was very interesting:
https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-languages-in-android-13.html