If you care about your software being stable and secure, you should care about how easy the programming language used makes and encourages that.
People aren't robots and make mistakes often.
ParetoOptimalDev
joined 1 year ago
The issue was closed, but a draft PR was linked... potato:
I did this before being in emacs made it so convenient to avoid, but got bit randomly by different versions or gnu vs BSD.
woman in emacs.
I also find info pages much nicer to use after an adjustment period given I grew up on vim and man.
So they should say that it is written with performance in mind. I don't care how you achieved that. rust, c++, assembly, whatever.
I care because performant and secure C++ is much harder to achieve while rust "shepherds" you towards it.
See https://nibblestew.blogspot.com/2020/03/its-not-what-programming-languages-do.html
I care because I know the values of those programmers in a narrow scope and won't be as annoyed when I inevitably have to go debug the rust code instead of C.
However, that values statement was challenged by automatic binary downloads without user confirmation.
Luckily the fix is already in progress, but its concerning it was ever implemented.
This video using emacs magit git porcelain might help you see why:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qPfJoeQCIvA&feature=youtu.be
Basically you can go quickly from the log to viewing diffs or any other action on commits or groups of commits and more.
I used to only use git from CLI for 10+ years but mostly only use magit now.
The model of out of process rendering in Xorg was done pre-2000s but GPUs became the norm and don’t work well this way.
Thats where we get into explicit and implicit sync right?
They were exaggerating to avoid work. Look at the PR diff to determine whether your anti-Rust bias is true.
Flatpak is worse for debugging, development, and reproducibility.
Its good for user friendly sandboxing, portability, and convenience.
This isn't true because until the PR fixing it goes through it downloads other binaries without user consent.
You see the conclusion of that article is that flatpaks are not repeoducible after presenting solutions to make it reproducible right?