Why do you say it needs more time in the oven? I’ve had zero issues with it as a drop-in replacement for Pip in a large commercial project, which is an extremely impressive achievement. (And it was 10x faster.)

I tried Poetry once and it failed to resolve dependencies on the first thing I tried it on. If anything Poetry needs more time in the oven. It also wasn’t 10x faster.

I don’t think libuv is really that popular, nor is it that confusing.

But I do agree it’s not a very good name. “Rye” is a much better name. Probably too late anyway.

Yes it’s terrible. The only hope on the horizon is uv. It’s significantly better than all the other tooling (Poetry, pip, pipenv, etc.) so I think it has a good chance of reducing the options to just Pip or uv at least.

But I fully expect the Python Devs to ignore it, and maybe even make life deliberately difficult for it like they did for static analysers. They have some strange priorities sometimes.

There’s also CPC/Farnell but none of those are in the same league as McMaster Carr. Much smaller ranges, worse prices, worse websites, missing CAD models, etc.

Another option is Misumi but they have even worse prices and don’t even sell to individuals.

I’d recommend going to McMaster Carr just to see what we are missing out on.

I wish we had something like McMaster Carr in the UK. I don’t even care if it’s fast! You guys had better appreciate how good you’ve got it.

I have never seen a single C++ codebase do that. It helps but it’s not a practical full solution.

I think once things get established the people in charge see any attempt to change it as some kind of personal insult, so they just go into defence mode. You see the same thing e.g. with Python - for literally decades they’ve denied that performance matters and it’s really only recently that that has changed.

I think it will only get worse for C++ because the people who understand this stuff have mostly given up on C++.

Yeah I mean it’s definitely a reference volume of last resort, rather than a tutorial you would read cover to cover. Clearly a genius but he explains things as if you already understand them, and can also read his mind.

That said, for a lot of the content the only alternative is research papers and they are even less accessible. I definitely would only use it if I couldn’t find answers anywhere else though.

The biggest issue is move constructors. Explanation here: https://cxx.rs/binding/cxxstring.html#restrictions

Probably seems like a little thing but I found it quite annoying in practice, and there are other things like not being able to combine serde-derive and cxx FFI on the same struct.

Oof found the Java developer. No thanks.

The C++ standards committee don’t see memory safety or UB as a problem. If they did they wouldn’t keep introducing new footguns, e.g. forgetting return_void() in a coroutine. They still think everyone should just learn the entire C++ spec and not make mistakes.

Interop between Rust and C++ is pretty bad actually - I can understand wanting to avoid that.

However I still agree. I can’t see opt-in mechanisms like this moving the needle.

It’s significantly less of a nightmare and Deno is downright pleasant.

The secret is just to do it anyway. I have yet to work in a job where anyone actively stopped me fixing technical debt, even if they never asked me to do it.

It’s cloud based though… Not ideal. I get why they had to do that (they didn’t want to expose people to the Python infra shit show) but it’s still kind of a shame.

Would be better if they added Typescript support IMO.

You’re still missing the point. We all understand that definition. We’re just saying that it is incorrect use of the word “concurrent”. Does that make sense? The word “concurrent” means things happening at the same time. It’s stupid for programmers to redefine it to mean things not happening at the same time.

You missed the point. He understands all these things you tried to explain. The point is that your definition of the word “concurrency” is objectively wrong.

You:

you seem to be doing multiple things at the same time. In reality they are run little by little one after another

The actual meaning of the word “concurrency”:

The property or an instance of being concurrent; something that happens at the same time as something else.

Wiktionary actually even disagrees with your pedantic definition even in computing!

(computer science, by extension) A property of systems where several processes execute at the same time.

I suspect that concurrency and parallelism were actually used interchangeably until multicore became common, and then someone noticed the distinction (which is usually irrelevant) and said “aha! I’m going to decide that the words have this precise meaning” and nerds love pedantic "ackshewally"s so it became popular.

Yeah it always bothered me that they’re saying “concurrency is not concurrency”.

I’m going to start using “multitasking” instead. That’s so much better. Who’s with me?

Yep. It’s great. The awesomeness of JSX/TSX without having to deal with client side JavaScript frameworks and their awkward state management systems (does anyone actually like hooks?).

The GPL doesn’t allow you to use someone else’s trademark. Though in this case it might be tricky for “WPEngine” to claim WordPress violated their trademark, and apparently WP has T&Cs that allow them to do it anyway.