Well, sure, age is part of it. I would hope languages coming out 40-50 years after their predecessors (in the case of Rust following C/C++) would have improved upon those predecessors and learned from the ideas of computer science in the intermediate years.
(Coincidentally this is one of my chief complaints about Go: despite being about the same age as Rust, it took the avenue of discarding quite a lot of advancements in programming language theory and ergonomics since C)
Go has a much different set of design goals than Zig, Nim, or especially Rust. Go is really for people who want a few major improvements on C like easier builds, faster builds, higher-level standard string handling, direct support for some form of concurrency, an optional GC which defaults to on, and a few syntax tweaks - things that a modern C might have that were not going to make it into a standards revision. Rust, to support ownership and the borrow checker at compile time, had to build a useful language around that hugely helpful but quite restrictive requirement. They subsequently went different directions than the Go team on a lot of the other language features. Zig, Nim, and D are something in between those extremes in their own ways.
As someone with a background of a lot of time with Perl and the Pascal/Ada family who was rooting for Julia, Go strikes a good balance for me where I would have used Perl, Python, Julia, Ruby, or shell for system tasks. I haven’t done a lot of work in Rust yet, because in the infrastructure space speed to implement is usually more important than performance and Go is a lot faster already than Python or Ruby and because my team as a whole has much more experience with it. I certainly appreciate why the folks at work who do the performance-critical network and video software use mostly Rust to do what they used to do in C, Java, or C++.
Fully agreed. FOSS maintainers don't owe you anything. You can ask for whatever you want, politely, but accept no or "maybe when I have the spoons, which may be never" as an answer, and don't push.
No, it’s not. At all. At the overwhelming majority of companies I’ve worked for or heard of, even 400-500 lines fully shipped in a week, slightly less than your figure here, would be top quartile of output - but further, it isn’t necessarily the point. Writing lines of code is a pretty small part of the job at companies with more than about 5-6 engineers on staff, past that it’s a lot more design and architecture and LEGO-brick-fitting - or just politicking and policying. Heck, I know folks who wish they could ship 400 lines of code a month, but are held back by the bureaucracies of their companies.
Agreed until/unless you end up at one of those bleeding-edge AI-mandate companies (Microsoft is in the news this week as one of them) that will simply PIP you for being a luddite if you aren't meeting AI usage metrics.
That described Dutch system also sounds relatively easy compared to the US model, which requires 2/3 votes in each chamber of Congress (meaning the people-based one and the land-based one), *then* 3/4 of the states (so another land-based check) have to ratify it.
Functionally this means that in the modern political climate, the US Constitution is fully frozen with no hope of amendment really ever again.
Yeah, I wasn’t clear enough. The first vote (before the election) requires a simple majority vote. The second vote (after the election) requires a 2/3 in favor vote in both houses.
I’m not sure if that’s worse than 3/4 states since the Netherlands isn’t so politically localized.
And it's $124k on the west coast, specifically western Oregon. Coastal PNW is notoriously expensive to live in - sure, Corvallis isn't Seattle, but it's not cheap, either. Folks like to balk at numbers when it comes to publicly (or FOSS-donation-ly) funded salaries, but also balk at tying context to those numbers. It happens almost every time anyone dares try to pay their bills on open-source work: a flame war over "you don't need that number, you could move to your parent's basement in Arkansas and survive on $20k instead!".
I grew up near/around/in Corvallis. $124k is quite a bit there. Food is cheap, you can find pretty cheap land/realty, etc. Overall it's pretty reasonable.
That said, $124k is not a lot for what Lance does.
Maybe it was at some point in the past? I have friends who currently live there and it does not sound cheap. Again - not Seattle bad, maybe not even Bellingham bad, but still not "124 is quite a bit" levels (from the sounds of it).
Regardless, we can definitely agree: Lance could be making a ton more elsewhere, but is a saint who cares about his work, and I appreciate his dedication!
> We're calling 400MB RAM usage ultra-lightweight now? OpenBox needs 7MB of RAM, and there are WMs that are even lighter on memory requirements.
How much is your X server process using? Because a Wayland compositor has to be both the display server and the WM in one. Comparing OpenBox alone to Niri is incomplete and incorrect, you have to compare OpenBox+Xorg+(xcompmgr or whatever frame-perfect compositor) to get a 1:1-ish comparison.
I could have word for word written almost exactly this blog post, that's how dead-on-accurate I find it, and how similar OP and I's experiences are (down to when and why we originally switched to Sway - mixed DPI long before Wayland was really "stable" for a daily driver).
Niri is incredible, and has completely eliminated the mildly infuriating bin-packing and layout-optimization problems that TWMs exhibit, without sending me back to the floating WM dark ages. I wish Niri had existed like 10 years ago, but I'll accept it existing now as plenty good enough.
I could also say the same, including the Wayland origin story. I'm pretty new to Niri — I only started playing with it about a month ago — but it's just absolutely that little bit more than Sway I didn't know I needed.
Except for anyone whose employer requires them to use Google services, since Google Apps (or whatever they call it these days) is a hugely popular offering for central company email/contacts/calendar/office suite. And frankly, it's better than dealing with Outlook and its unrelenting AI slop machine advertising.
Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this, so I hope we enjoy this digital feudalism only expanding, never receding, in the coming years.
>Well, this country (the US) decided in November to go the exact opposite direction of having a government capable of, let alone willing to, pursuing litigation like this
Okay, I'll retract my remarks when the new formation of the FTC actually goes after a tech giant. And frankly, I have doubt any DOJ filings of this type won't get repealed by force from above in short order. This is a case that was mostly handled by the prior DOJ, which is gone now, replaced by new management.
New management is aligned with breaking up big tech.
Founders Fund (Thiel), A16Z (Andressen [0], Horowitz), and YC (Gary Tan) have all been lobbying for some form of big tech breakup because it sucks up capital+oxygen needed for startups they funded to exit at respectable valuations.
Also, Andressen's Netscape was screwed over by Microsoft, so he has a grudge against large players.
Breaking up big tech would oxygenate the entire tech sector.
Startups would be able to grow larger. There would be less threat from big tech coming in to eat your market, and M&A wouldn't be the preferred exit strategy.
Tech talent would be able to get paid more without big tech setting wages and orchestrating coordinated layoffs. More successful startups = more money for venture and labor capital. Right now that money just goes to institutional shareholders which are not the innovation drivers of the economy.
Startups will actually get to compete for markets rather than having them won and subsidized by unrelated business units at the big tech titans. The solutions delivered will fit the market needs much better.
Even big tech itself might fetch a higher valuation and be greater than the sum of its parts. So much of big tech is inefficient, untethered from market realities (eg. Alexa), and a waste of talent and human capital on dead end projects. Having Jeff Bezos "pay whatever it takes" to acquire the rights to "007" is a sign of how bloated these market distorting companies have become.
(Coincidentally this is one of my chief complaints about Go: despite being about the same age as Rust, it took the avenue of discarding quite a lot of advancements in programming language theory and ergonomics since C)
reply