I feel like this is due to my C-suite pushing for AI integrations in basically everything

I would put a small amount of money on it actually being because this guy was involved in setting up that workflow and sees your suggestion to fix it as criticism that it is shit (and by implication so is he).

Very common defence mechanism.

Yeah I think the reputation was probably deserved early in Rust's life, but as time has gone on it has gotten a lot easier to write, especially with the non-lexical lifetimes update 3 years ago.

They should be keeping them in something like kwallet. But in practice they don't because a) there isn't really a single standard for that on Linux (yeay, I have to support gnome-keyring too!), b) it's a lot more work than using a plain text file, c) the UX is considerably worse, and d) the security benefits are marginal at best (especially if you have full disk encryption).

Plain text is the most sensible option.

They're released on a schedule so they are often quite boring.

I don't think there were any standards for this sort of thing when Flatpak and Snaps first came out, and they arrived at the same time and have pretty big differences. So this doesn't apply.

pointing and saying “this is shit. Look at this shit”

Yeah you only get to do that if you're Linus 😄

TOML is not a very good format IMO. It's fine for very simple config structures, but as soon as you have any level of nesting at all it becomes an unobvious mess. Worse than YAML even.

What is this even?

[[fruits]]
name = "apple"

[fruits.physical]
color = "red"
shape = "round"

[[fruits.varieties]]
name = "red delicious"

[[fruits.varieties]]
name = "granny smith"

[[fruits]]
name = "banana"

[[fruits.varieties]]
name = "plantain"

That's an example from the docs, and I have literally no idea what structure it makes. Compare to the JSON which is far more obvious:

{
  "fruits": [
    {
      "name": "apple",
      "physical": {
        "color": "red",
        "shape": "round"
      },
      "varieties": [
        { "name": "red delicious" },
        { "name": "granny smith" }
      ]
    },
    {
      "name": "banana",
      "varieties": [
        { "name": "plantain" }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

The fact that they have to explain the structure by showing you the corresponding JSON says a lot.

JSON5 is much better IMO. Unfortunately it isn't as popular and doesn't have as much ecosystem support.

I use this big expensive simulator called Questa, and if there's an error during the simulation it prints Errors: 1, Warnings: 0 and then exits with EXIT_SUCCESS (0)! I tried to convince them that this is wrong but they're like "but it successfully simulated the error". 🤦🏻‍♂️

We end up parsing the output which is very dumb but also seems to be industry standard in the silicon industry unfortunately (hardware people are not very good at software engineering).

uv is fantastic. I would highly recommend it. I've used it in a quite complex environment, with no issues (quite an achievement!) and it's about 10x faster than pip.

I mean... I guess it's not surprising given uv is written in Rust and pip is written in Python, but even so given pip is surely IO bound I was expecting something like 4x improvement. 10x is impressive.

TL;DR (there should be an open source drama summarising website!):

• Hazing someone in your discord because they have pronouns in their bio
• Speaking pretty bluntly against queer people and minorities at large
  • "at 15 he doesnt even know what he will be studying at uni and he already wanna go get AIDS?"
  • "I think this server's motto should be 'love guns, hate damn minorities'"

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.

Saving this for when people try to claim that naming things isn't important!

Also that is clearly a security issue. Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is forgetting that humans exist. Though I suspect they were just trying to avoid admitting fault and doing work. Disappointing either way.