Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)O
Posts
89
Comments
1453
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • It sounded perfect, but then I had a look at the docs - they are a mix of English and German 😢 And the homepage doesn't have any pricing information - it's not a hosted service. There's no way I can present this to my company.

    I guess they need to cook another year or two.

  • Open Desk🤔 Guess I'll have to take a look at it. If the government can use it, maybe companies can too. I'm so tired of fucking slack and Google docs. Save me, Open Desk. Please!

  • We're witnessing the beginning of the end of Microsoft as an OS company.

    Keep going. The faster the better. Imagine if billions went into Linux and opensource every year. It could be way better. The only thing I'm afraid of is companies starting to decide the future of linux. Everything would die in committee or they'd try and enshittify it to the max by adding proprietary kernel modules, filesystems and whatever else in order to get an upper hand.

  • I see what you mean. OK, I haven't read the rust language specs, RFCs or whatever, so this is my guess why it was done that way.

    Regarding derive: Rust doesn't have inheritance but it does have traits / interfaces. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. For environment with constrained resources, having structs that dont implement a bunch of things you don't need is an advantage. The downside is that in other cases, you need to know what you want.

    For example not every class needs to be comparable or know how to print itself to debug output. But if you do want that, you need to know to implement the right trait. Implementing the same trait the same way all the time however is just boilerplate, hence, the derive macro.

    At the same time proc-macros like derive ate extremely powerful since they ingest the syntax tree and spit one back out. It allows you to do crazy stuff at compile time with all the IDE goodness of showing docs, finding symbols, and type checking. IDEs can predictably expand macros. I have yet to find an IDE besides CLion that does the same with C/C++ code.

    Process macros in rust can do things like consume files (statically as in inserted by the compiler as opposed to dynamically I'm the function browsing the filesystem), which allows reading and interpreting another language, like python or perl, to generate symbols for those other languages. It is thus possible for example to write a python module completely in Rust. With work, it theoretically is possible to also extend python classes (or symbols from other languages) purely in rust.


    As for println! and format!, those macros are in the STL. They don't make it heavier. I think they are macros because rust doesn't (or didn't) support variadic arguments.

  • I remember reading a post from an intern there about why they switched to using a browser for the start bar and windows settings UI: the code was just layers upon layers of friction requiring conversion from C++ to some intermediate format into another one and back. Making a simple change would take days if not weeks.

    Ad now that they want to rewrite millions of lines of C++ into Rust using AI to rewrite all of winblows in Rust, it's going to get much worse.

  • It's called Microslop. Won't you ever forget it

  • What are you talking about specifically? I've written C and C++ code and it's terrible. UTF strings were an absolute pain, you needed Boost for the simplest things (though many things of boost have been assimilated in the standard), there are a thousand different ways to do simple things like iterating through iterables (again, things have changed in the standard), there's no default dependency management, and so much more.

    Rust comes with dependency management, a way to write unit tests and integrations, generate docs, toggle features, has standard iterables, string handling, async, compiler targets, and a lot more things C and C++ could only dream of having.

    Don't even get me started on zig which doesn't have its own friggin string class / struct whatever.

    So again, I ask you, what are you referring to? Please provide examples.

  • Someone recently wrote an article about how susceptible WSL was to hacks and how it was an excellent attack vector because windows didn't check it. It was on one of the cyber security communities on Lemmy.

    I dont have WSL but based on that article, I assume you can circumvent a lot of winblows crap in WSL. If you can run GUI apps all the better!

  • I hope that the European Commission's recent call for evidence regarding the benefits of opensource will lead to sustainable funding for such important projects. If I'm not mistaken, even non-EU citizens may voice their support for opensource in the initiative. We should demand a system that compensates opensource developers somehow.

  • "Improve documentation". If they make it like the nixos documentation, that'll make the framework documentation worse.

  • Ayaya ayaya!

  • Just put an MCP on it and let the AI play the game at the slowest speed ever

  • Install windows so you can join in on the pleasure of wiping windows!

  • That could've used an example of debugging recursion to show how useful the repl is. I knew about the repl and have used it to find duplicate packages for example, but what it doesn't help with is finding out how stuff was added to environment.systemPackages and, most importantly, why.

    The most glaring omission in nix is the lack of a debugger with conditional breakpoints. Nix is interpreted, is it not? Shouldn't it be possible to have breakpoints?

  • Why is this thing so popular? Do people just love faschtech?

  • My memory of it is how unnecessarily arcane it is. I had (and still have) a better understanding of assembly than COBOL. COBOL has hundreds of keywords. And while an instruction set can have thousands of instructions, COBOL still felt more difficult.

    Also, nearly any executable can be decompiled to assembly. If you understand assembly, it has a plethora of uses. COBOL can make big bank, but it currently has very limited use.

  • I'd much rather write in assembly than COBOL

  • Haven't heard or read about it since it was kicked out of the kernel! Does it still exist?