Deno looks interesting.

But Bun choosing Zig makes me think their priorities are not my priorities. As of now, you choose Zig (a not-yet-stable language) because you want to learn Zig and make a neat side-project. Those are not my priorities. Zig offers no unique advantages other than neat new syntax.

Deno chose Rust, which, like Zig, is new, but Rust has reached 1.0 and offers a unique advantage with its safety features. I’m not saying anything about the greatness of Rust here, only that Rust does offer unique advantages, and Rust could be chosen because of general priorities.

Bun chose Zig and then worked backwards and formed their priorities around Zig. Deno formed their priorities and their priorities lead them to Rust.

That’s how I feel anyway.

Were just waiting on WASM to be able to access the DOM APIs directly, and then all languages will be first class citizens on the web, and then RIP JavaScript.

Fortran is still a good language for some purposes I think.

And I feel the same way, C++ tries to solve the problem of having too many features by adding more features.

To answer my own question: I believe it’s a runtime error: https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/any/trait.Any.html#method.downcast

What if I specify the wrong type? let retrieved = storage.get::<SomeOtherType>();?

Is it a runtime error or a compile time error?

I’d rather believe it’s a bunny than acknowledge snails that large exist.

I abandoned poetry after it was unable to install a specific version of pytorch I was using.

In pip I would do something like pip3 install torch torchvision torchaudio --index-url https://download.pytorch.org/whl/cu118, but IIRC poetry didn’t support the --index-url option.

I wouldn’t consider Julia statically-typed; am I wrong?

The question mine as well be “what is your favorite compiled language?”. There is a lot of overlap between the possible answers.

I hear you. It’s no good to just cede ownership of a word and allow others to define it however suits them. But… it’s Twitter, getting into a good faith philosophical discussion about the definitions of words ain’t going to happen, so in many cases it’s better to just not bring up the controversial words at all. Guess there’s pros and cons to each.

I agree. That’s why I suggest (or more like implied) that when we know we have different definitions of a word, we avoid using that word. It’s a good thing to at least try if two people really care about understanding.

“Woke” is a problem because people have different definitions, and no matter what Webster or any other authority says the definition is, people will continue to have differing definitions.

How can we reach understanding when we don’t even agree on the definition of words?

This is way to nuanced to deal with on fucking Twitter. If you use the word “woke” on Twitter, expect a lot of misunderstanding, talking past each other, and bad faith arguments to follow.

I did not suggest banning any words.

To understand why I’m opposed to the word “woke”, you must first acknowledge this fact:

Sometimes people have different definitions of the same word.

If you’re willing to accept that, then it logically follows that using a word that people have different definitions of will cause more confusion than understanding. If our goal in speaking is to convey understanding, then that is best accomplished by avoiding words where people have conflicting definitions.

We’ve all learned that there are facts and opinions, but there is a third category: definitions.

If you watch for it, you will see that many disagreements boil down to nothing more than disagreeing about the definition of a single word. If we temporarily avoid using that word, suddenly we find ourselves in agreement, or at least having a better understanding of each other.

Finally a place I can share my cold takes. (I’m not on Twitter, I won’t discuss this on Reddit either.)

1. The community manager had a meltdown and blocking everyone was a power trip and was wrong.

2. Godot’s tweet was wrong, because it used the word “woke” which immediately drives any conversation into the gutter. Doesn’t matter if you’re on the right or left, as soon as you say the word “woke” you have ruined the conversation.

3. It is good that Godot explicitly supports LGBT+ people. They should be welcome. The community CoC should make this explicit, and it does. A tweet to reaffirm this is fine, a cringe joke born from the dredges of Twitter is less fine.

4. Godot’s “revenge forks” are amusing and will not go anywhere. Someone might collect some donations before grifting into the night though.

5. None of this has any effect on Godot’s technical suitability for creating a game.

What is the game? It’s not being a shill to answer questions.

The reason why is that they need my email address?

Like anything medically related in the US, it’s our time to crack open our wallets and do our patriotic duty of paying half the nation.

Like, if I want to talk to a doctor for 5 minutes, then it’s my time to pay the all the insurance industry workers, and I have to pay my part of those 3 minutes long drug commercials you see on TV every ad break and before every YouTube video, and I have to pay all those people locking down the medical devices so that the users can’t use their own data. This is my time to shine, I got to pay for all this because I talked to the doctor for 5 minutes. Also, hopefully in the end I have a few cents left over to give to the doctor.

Fucking rent seekers…

Look at the entire history.

In 2018 their stock price was about 24, now it’s 2.

You guys had a house!?!

And I think their board is panicking trying to figure out how they can regain me, specifically, as a customer.

More seriously, I apparently am not the only one who eventually got their fill of Ubisoft games. I think Ubisoft has planted resentment in the minds of all their customers, and as soon as they slipped a little in game quality their customers were more than happy to leave, just for the sake of leaving.