Related https://www.datadoghq.com/product/platform/watchdog/

I’m still baffled that some people are bold enough to voluntarily posts those kind of most-of-the-time useless “benchmark” that will inevitably be riddled with errors. I don’t know what pushes them. In the end you look like a clown more often than not.

The fastest way to learn truth is by posting wrong thing on the internet, or something.

Trying things casually out of curiosity isn’t harmful. I expect people understand that these kinds of blog posts aren’t rigorous science to draw foundational conclusions from.

And the errors are a feature — I learn the most from the errata!

You spend more time reading code that writing it. Optimising for the later is a mistake. I guess the noticeable pushback against including generics was not unwarranted, people are just now starting to see the ripple effects we were warned about.

Generics are, IMO, necessary for even a semi-modern language. Okay, you don't need a turing complete templating sublanguage like C++, but you do need at least a way to take generic functions and create generic containers.

In application code you will almost never write generics. To me, it's always been a non-issue.

It's optimized so that it's easy to read the code that you read all the time: code iterating through the containers.

It is dramatically less common to read through the implementation of containers.

That's like... the first thing you learn about the language and the primitives the language was built upon. Yes mutex are a thing.

Sure race conditions in general, but the subtlety that it can cause memory unsafety, not something I recall being mentioned.

Same feeling. The jump from all the previous laptops I owned to an M1 was an incredible jump. The thing is fast, has amazing battery life and stays cold. Never felt the need to upgrade.

Thats actually interesting. Was there any concern at any point in the early days about supporting other VCS or being too focused on git?

There was concern actually. We debated a bit the concept of naming the company "GitHub", since "git" is baked into the company name. We worried a little about what happens when the next big VCS thing comes along, not knowing that it's going to be dominant for at least the next 20 years.

What’s the story with that bot? Always thought it was cool. Was that all smoke and mirrors?

I think maybe parent comment is referring to it essentially just employing a zerg rush but with the speed and reaction time of an AI? Not 100% sure... Unrelated, iirc the starcraft functionality was an early example of generalizing a pretrained NN, alphaGO, and showing that it could adapt to learn and defeat games across strategic domains, especially after it learned so much strategy from the most difficult, widely played, and most strategically-varied physical game available.

That’s beside the point. The article is specifically about « GitHub forks » and their shortcomings. It’s unrelated to pushing to distinct repositories not magically ´linked’ by the GH « fork feature ».

Compile-time safety is not achieved which is the point.

It does not exist in the implementation. We can discuss workarounds which make it more convenient and directly address one of the points in the article, or we can discuss something which is definitely not going to change in the lifetime of the language.

There is no language that completely isolates you from runtime hazards.

And people have, by definition, a much easier time reading code when it’s always consistent across codebases. Thanks for making the point.