They chose “version” because they are just that, versions. Improvements over the original design that benefit from new insights and technological improvements. We’re lucky they had the foresight to include a version number in the spec.

No they aren’t. A higher version of UUID isn’t “newer and better”, like the word “version” implies. It’s just different. It’s like they called a car “vehicle version 1” and a motorbike “vehicle version 2”. The common use of “version” in the software world would mean that a motorbike is a newer and hopefully improved version of a car, which is not the case.

The talking pumpkin is 100% right that they should have used “type” or “mode” or “scheme” or something instead.

There aren’t many good cross platform GUI toolkits. I mean realistically is there anything other than Qt?

formatting does depend on the type of variables. Go look at ktfmt’s codebase and come back after you’ve done so…

I skimmed it. It appears to visit the AST of the code and format that, as any formatter does. ASTs have not been type checked.

Can you give an example?

it gives you an option, just like if it was an interface. Did you actually try this out before commenting?

Precisely! It doesn’t know the answer so it has to guess, or make you guess.

And how often are you naming functions the exact same thing across two different classes without using an interface?

You mean how often does the same field name come up more than once? All the time obviously! Think about common names like id, size, begin, children, etc. etc.

I’m sorry, but you clearly haven’t thought this out, or you’re really quite ignorant as to how intellisense works in all languages (including Ruby, and including statically typed languages).

I’m sorry but you clearly haven’t thought this through, or you’re just happy to ignore the limitations of Ruby. I suspect the latter. Please don’t pretend they aren’t limitations though. It’s ok to say “yes this isn’t very good but I like Ruby anyway”.

I think you’re getting a bit confused. How do you know where x’s type is defined and therefore where x.bar is defined if you don’t know what type x is? It’s literally impossible. Best you can do is global type inference but that has very big limitations and is not really feasible in a language that wasn’t designed for it.

Do you think that formatters for dynamic languages need to know the type in order to format them properly? Then why in the world would you need it to know where to jump to in a type definition!?!

Not sure if that is a serious question, but it’s because formatting doesn’t depend on the type of variables but going to the definition of a field obviously depends on the type that the field is in.

Maybe my example was not clear enough for you - I guess it’s possible you’ve never experienced working intellisense, so you don’t understand the feature I’m describing.

class A:
  bar: int

class B:
  bar: str

def foo(x):
  return x.bar

Ctrl-click on bar. Where does it jump to?

I would prepare a healthy supply of alcoholic beverages and maybe some antidepressants! Also clear your calendar so you have a few weeks to debug.

Oh really? How would an IDE go-to-definition on x.bar in this code?

def foo(x):
  return x.bar

Best it can do is heuristics and guesswork.

The kitty graphics protocol lets you send images to display in the terminal. I had a play around with it trying to make a similar GUI. The big gotcha is text rendering. You can either stick to normal grid aligned monospace, or I think you could maybe use a texture atlas, but it’s not going to be very efficient at all. I haven’t got as far as trying that though.

The videos… while they work are probably uncompressed video which is only going to work well over a very fast network.

I’ve literally never heard anyone say that

Well you didn’t listen then. Google the phrase.

I can tell you’ve literally never even tried this…

I do not need to try it to know that this is fundamental impossible. But I will try it because you can go some way towards proper type knowledge without explicit annotations (e.g. Pycharm can do this for Python) and it’s better than nothing (but still not as good as actual type annotations).

It’s also much more readable than bash, python, javascript, etc. so writing a readable (and runnable everywhere)

Bash definitely. Not sure I’d agree for Python though. That’s extremely readable.

You’ll always get downvotes for this from Linux apologists who didn’t have the exact problems you’re describing, but you’re 100% right. There are loads of things you might reasonably want to do in Linux that require a command line, or just don’t work well.

You’re talking about rails.

Maybe other Ruby code is better, but people always say Rails is the killer app of Ruby so…

Use an IDE like I said and you can literally just “Find all usages” or “Jump to declaration”, etc.

That only works if you have static type annotations, which seems to be very rare in the Ruby world.

In any case, you shouldn’t be using any of these for large projects like gitlab, so it’s completely inconsequential.

Well, I agree you shouldn’t use Ruby for large projects like Gitlab. But why use it for anything?

This should work out of the box!

How do you expect the system to know what program is important to you and which isn’t?

Hmm

The windows solution is to switch tasks very often and to do a lot of accounting to ensure fair distribution.

Sounds like you have a good idea already!

You’re right of course. I think the issue is that Linux doesn’t care about the UI. As far as it is concerned GUI is just another program. That’s the same reason you don’t have things like ctrl-alt-del on Linux.

No. And even worse is Linux’s OOM behaviour - 99% of the time it just reboots the machine! Yes I have swap and zswap.

Linux is just really bad at desktop.

Interesting I hadn’t heard of these “atomic” distros. There isn’t really much description of what exactly is atomic about them though - all you get is “The whole system is updated in one go”. Can you explain it?

Maybe, but I think the only app store that does vet apps is the Apple one, so that should be the default expectation.

And I think even they wouldn’t manually look for something like this. They’re mainly concerned about people breaking the commercial rules.

Ever tried to follow a large Ruby codebase like Gitlab? Absolutely nightmare. Not only does it not have type annotations, so you can’t follow code by clicking, but you can’t even follow it by grepping because Rubyists seem to love generated identifiers. Even the syntax of the language makes grepping worse, e.g. the lack of brackets prevents you from grepping for function calls like foo(.

Yeah I think RISC-V is probably still about 10 years away from being a sensible choice for a laptop. There’s a load of platform stuff around things like ACPI and Device Tree that’s still being decided. Also some ISA extensions that are standard on x86/ARM are either unratified or very recently ratified (e.g. Vector).

For microcontrollers it’s ready now, and for server applications it’s probably doable now and will be solid in a few years. Laptops & phones will be last though.

Real moral of the story: STATIC TYPING!

Seriously so many people think it’s a waste of time, and then stuff like this happens.

Microsoft doesn’t have a vetting process for publishing extensions in the store. Maybe the failure is that people assume they do?