they are banned in the phillipines

I am very rarely working in other people's stuff because I am too rudimentary but of course I try to follow their rules when I do.

For my own purposes, I would do it in one of the below ways. I made the case more complicated by changing the lengths. I mostly choose consistent levels of indentation using tabs over per-character alignment but not always.

[--] = tab, ~ = single space (and double space = double space in front of comments for legibility here)

function() {
[--]var = 1
[--]another_var = 2
[--]indented(arg, arg2, arg3)
[--]indentedTwo(arg, 
[--]~~~~~~~~~~~~arg2,
[--]~~~~~~~~~~~~arg3)  #: aligned by spaces to match specific charecter length
[--]indentedThree(
[--]~~~~~~~~~~~~arg,
[--]~~~~~~~~~~~~arg2)  #: aligned by space to arbitrary charecter length, same as the previous
[--]indented4(
[--][--]arg,
[--][--]arg2)  #: aligned by tabstop by level
[--][--]~~~~~  #: this would be my preference overall if I had to chose
[--][--]~~~~~  #: (which so far I haven't)
}

Kate has a great feature called "insert smart newline" which I shortcut to shift+enter. If you are typing for example on the penultimate line above and "insert smart newline" it'll automatically fill the line with [--][--]~~~~~ #: and put the cursor at the end. This feature really enables a lot of these habits for better or worse.

When I write output to terminal I really like being able to use tabs to modify the length of tabs according to what is the content. Sometimes I wish I could set tabs in my editor (like a word processor), it would make things simpler. But then there's portability issues for non standard features like that so.

It makes sense it's a Vim thing since it's used in kitty config. When I search for marker based folding as someone else said it's called above, almost everything I get is for Vim. It's always confused me why gui-based text editors seem to not have a lot of visually-based features like this compared to terminal-based editors. I guess it's harder to create a system for user customization in a GUI application.

At least Kate has some support. Now that I know what it's called I will look into what else is available there.

I am not a big fan pf matrix but I think SchlidiChat was the one I used most successfully on android.

From what I have seen a main issue with Matrix is that the protocol can be implemented in bits and pieces. Which is perfectly fair but it leads to an inconsistent user experience. The default web clients you first use to try it out will be using strong encryption settings by default but then a lot of the mobile or native desktop clients don't support encryption. So it's difficult to get going finding cross platform apps that have all the desired functionality consistently between them.

In terms of the apps, I don't think comparing matrix to lemmy is exactly fair for this reason.

that's interesting... I guess a forum and a chat have a lot of similar attributes. The difference is in the presentation with forum being more static appearing. What would be the reason to deploy Matrix like that instead of using a purpose-build forum software? The most obvious would be not requiring a second account.

What's PoC?

Why is it an MIT project in the first place?

I do not program. So maybe trying to understand all this is over my head. wikipedia describes

A static library or statically linked library contains functions and data that can be included in a consuming computer program at build-time such that the library does not need to be accessible in a separate file at run-time.

I thought that was the idea of binaries in general. In the Arch repos there are many packages appended with -bin. (The Arch repos also contain items of various licenses including proprietary.) Lots of FLOSS packages make a binary available by direct download from their website. Without too much detail, is there something special about Rust? Or maybe I misunderstand the concept of a binary release.

library code licensed under it must be able to be replaced.

Does this mean you need to be able to make a reproducible build? Or need to be able to swap code for something else? Wouldn't that inherently break a program?

matrix isn't a forum. it's a chat.

I felt the same way every time I tried to use Twitter as I feel every time I try to use Mastodon. It's either way too much or way too little. I prefer everything about the reddit/lemmy/threadiverse style.

How would we even be having this conversation on microblogging? A bunch of reposts, with or without comments, disconnected from each other... So much nicer to have a "subject" line and a page where every relevant comment is presented.

but what I would do is add a comment in the code to specify the change and link to your documentation file for more details (if needed).

However, I have never seen any project doing it like that (for a good reason probably?).

I think what happens to me is that I completely lack discipline about structure and will often decide to re-organize things. So then I will tidy the documentation section which breaks links and nothing can be found. I would only be able to behave differently if I was very confident about what I will do and how I will do it from the outset; otherwise it is unavoidable part of learning and changing ideas through the life of a project.

One slightly more stable system I've had for my own code is to use the Issues tracker as a sort of documentation storage system. Open an Issue against the repo for everything I did, keep all notes in the Issue, and link to that by number like #1, which all the forges understand as special notation so it gets picked up in useful ways in terms of references.

I don't do this too often because it's a mess if anyone else ever wanted to utilize the Issue tracker and not what the Issues are for. Not to mention embarrassing. But I've resorted to it in situations where I had a huge amount of learning to do. With the idea that potentially could move the actual end project to a separate, cleaner repo once it was presentable, but I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I will say that despite being an abuse of the Issues tracker it has stood the test of time and I can go back to stuff I was working on years ago and find information stored in this way.

But with a regular fork that is made on the same platform as the original (eg forking a github repo to another github repo), you don't actually get an Issues tracker; only the upstream can have Issues. So it's a bit moot.

It’s probably not what you’re looking for but maybe this can give you any idea or see if this could fit your workflow?

Thanks for sharing. :) I hope you don't mind me saying this but it's nice to see commits like "Just a commit test". I also have these as part of learning git.

I didn't know we could use callouts like this in codeberg MD. Cool!

> [!CAUTION]  
> Sometimes...

thanks I was wondering about that but forgot to specifically ask :)

This is a case where both tools are invaluable.

The original find has much more comprehensive options. Of course it is extensively documented and you can find all kinds of information online about how it works and how to combine it with other tools to accomplish all kinds of tasks. And it's GPL which is always preferable.

fd has a narrower range of functionality but goddamned it really is faster. fd can run several searches on the whole hard drive's contents while find is struggling to get through just a single comparable search on the same set of files. For simple tasks, the cli usage for fd is less to remember and less to type.

If I had to choose, I'd stick with find because it can do everything, even if it's slower and more cumbersome. But luckily, don't have to choose, just have both and use them as appropriate.