It's so ironic how many downvotes this is getting in the context of this thread.

Scientists have been saying these same things my entire life. While they are absolutely correct, the necessary change does not seem to be a priority for leaders. At best it gets lip service and underwhelming commitments. At worst conservatives completely deny the problem. We have social issues blocking our scientific solutions.

I don't think our existing leadership is capable of being proactive, we are always slow and reactive. We need more radical social change, which I only see happening once a certain generation dies and another takes their place.

I think the skin color and hair style do more for his look TBH

Despite what developers do at the end of the day, there are conventions for application directories on every OS.

I just use the directories crate in Rust.

https://github.com/dirs-dev/directories-rs

The fact that this is legal is what's blowing my mind.

I can't speak for OCaml, but type inference provides a lot of benefit in Rust. I already have too many keystrokes as it is, and forcing me to be explicit about everything would just add to the stress of using a keyboard.

I agree that types should be explicit at API boundaries. That's precisely where you want to catch misuse.

As for the point about inference making code harder to read: I suppose that's true if you spend a lot of time reading code outside of your editor where you also must know what the types are. But that just sounds like a bad workflow in general. Why are you avoiding using a better tool for the job? Modern code review tools like Github even support LSP-like features to solve this problem; and if your language isn't supported... just pull the feature branch to review it.

Yea this looks productive.

Imagine how useless the LSP suggestions are.

Humans are also now incentivized to safeguard their intellectual property from AI to keep a competitive advantage.

IYDKNYK

Honestly the only things that are similar to C++ are small amounts of C-like syntax, RAII, smart pointers, and iterators. And even so, Rust improves those features a lot. The list of things that Rust rejects from C++ is much larger; Rust does not have:

• new and delete (perhaps discouraged in modern C++)
• function overloading
• inheritance (replaced by composition or traits)
• friend classes (replaced by modules)
• exceptions (replaced by Result values)
• 6 different kinds of first-class constructors (hallelujah)
• templates (replaced by constrained parametric polymorphism)
• variable mutability by default

Rust does OOP very differently and leans harder into functional paradigms.

The only thing a GUI text editor can be better at than a terminal editor is making it easier to use the mouse.

Yea it is ultimately on the admins, but Lemmy just needs to not make it hard to comply with GDPR. So it's up to admins to raise issues when Lemmy is seen as an obstacle to compliance, and it's up to devs to listen and implement compliance features.