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.

Very cool but I hope they give it proper GUI integration, not just a webview or VNC, which is how the alternatives work.

If you use VSCode, open both files and then ctrl-shift-P "Compare active file with ..."

You're welcome.

To be fair if it's an exceptional error message (i.e. database timeout; not incorrect password) I don't think i18n matters that much. Most people will just be googling the error message anyway, and if not it should be rare enough that using Google translate isn't an issue.

The general difficulty of setup, poor & buggy hardware support and the inevitability of dropping to the command line are bigger issues.

I have yet to see one of these that gives any benefit over ncdu, which is amazing. I guess if you need to log the output this makes sense but that's pretty niche.

Yeah possible, but this of the amount of effort that would take!

I scrolled a lot before I gave up looking for an example. No thanks.

Wow, I would love to understand what leads to such insane views. Like, did Rust kill your father or something?

I'm actually serious, why do you have such love for a bad (by modern standards) language like C and such hatred for a great language like Rust?

If the build scripts were tiny and checked then the attack vector would have just been different, I’m not even too sure the language mattered.

I have to disagree here. Maybe they would have found another way, but it would have been a more obvious way, which is a very good thing.

Yes it would have still been compromised but it may have been detected earlier. So it's still pretty bad to have these incomprehensible build scripts.

Without static type annotations you can only make best effort guesses that are sometimes right. Better than nothing but not remotely the same as actual static types. The LSP you linked works best when you use static type annotations.

Also I would really recommend Pylance over that if you can - it's much better but is also closed source unfortunately.

I agree. OCaml too. I think there are several factors that lead to it being very difficult to read other people's code:

• Currying and lack of syntax in general means you have to be a human parser for basic things like "which part of the text is a function name? which bits are arguments?". Often it's impossible to tell without looking up the function definitions.
• The functional style - while generally great - also makes it very tempting for people to write enormous heavily nested functions where the control flow is hard to follow. You sometimes get assignment expressions that are hundreds of lines long.
• Haskel & OCaml feature global type inference. Programmers often omit explicit type annotations which very often means that function types are inferred as generic. This means you lose several huge benefits from static types. For example you can no longer look up the types that will actually be passed into the function, and inferring the authors intent is much harder. It also makes error messages way more confusing.
• I don't know why but Haskel and OCaml programmers love stupidly short identifiers.
• They also abhor comments.