i share some of this sentiment as well and i think a lot of my hesitance is that these solutions seem born of the popularity of rust. we have had c and c++ for as long as javascript has been a full-stack workhorse. is it just the barrier of entry / novelty of rust has prompted longtime js devs to make the leap into building tooling? along with it, it seems the "new framework every week" jab at javascript can be applied to the build system as well. in any case, i welcome the speed improvements and this certainly does not preclude me from using these new tools where i'm able.
Yes. The somewhat nice property of rust having guaranteed memory safety has been blown out of proportion so much that even though C++ with smart pointers and a bit of bounds checking is quite likely not to have memory safety issues, the comunity has decided that anything less than a guarantee means the language is unfit for any purpose and no new projects should ever be started in it. As if Java/JS/C# don't have null reference exceptions occurring all the time and to me those seem quite similar to segfaults. But I guess people are only specifically alergic to memory unsafety.
in a world where iOS users won't install another free app from the app store because they already use iMessage, matrix is like asking for your friends to perform calculus just to talk to you.
Sure, but I don't see whatsapp/telegram as worse realistically if you've already lost at that level.
Signal is very much in the same area of: "trust us".
With a caveat that they also say: "here's a bunch of information on why you should: but you can't really verify any of it and we have proven bad faith before- also we have an army of people who will pile-on if you call us out for not being actually verified, so, just trust us- we are the secure messenger and all those scary things are just so we are easy to use".
I read somewhere here that, in the case of what's app more metadata is shared with meta, and telegram doesn't have E2EE by default for groups.
Didn't check though.
You're correct. There are more security features with signal too like the server stuff. It's true that they don't update the code enough but the parent is being overly critical. It's not like WhatsApp is giving us access to the server in any form. So it's not a fair comparison. (Edit: Also, the app can be built from source and you can verify that the communication isn't happening in a way where the server could decrypt it. So it's not too big a deal that the server isn't perfectly up to date on public commits)
To their point, there are benefits to federated systems. But I've yet to see a federated system have moderate to large usage without becoming centralized. Think email. And until this problem can be solved you're still left with a "trust us" problem. There's no trustless system out there, yet. But hopefully it comes in the future. In the meantime, signal is the best if you also want to communicate with anyone that can't tell you if a stack is FIFO or LIFO (or even know those acronyms).
Definitely not true. Facebook literally censors private conversations. You simply can't send certain text strings to your friends. That is far more dangerous than relying on a third party that claims to be protecting your privacy. Especially since all signs point to them being honest.
I don't know about WhatsApp (but I also didn't mention WhatsApp), but go to FB Messenger right now, open up a conversation with yourself, and try to send a message containing the string "thedonald.win". You'll get an error message saying "Couldn't send", with no further explanation. The list of banned strings used to be longer, but they've unbanned a lot of them since the election ended.
To be clear, this is in private conversations. Not just posting publicly on Facebook or w/e.
Funny enough the best way I found to convince iOS users to talk to me on signal is by telling them it's like iMessage but cross platform. Sure there are differences but most people aren't using those features. I do think signal could really benefit by just linking signalstickers.com into the app since that's the biggest complaint I actually get.
i completely agree. use the right tool for the job. if you need significantly dynamic content, you should consider another framework such as rails (as the author indicates).
if netlify is being portrayed as the only platform to deploy a statically generated site from git commit, then i suppose yes, the sane defaults of these frameworks are not the right tool _for you_.
it is very sad. i personally would much rather someone walks through their problem solving approach and identifies shortcomings/edge cases than to regurgitate a memorized algorithm.
it's really easy to identify code that is not optimal at code review time. it is far more challenging to have a conversation with a algorithm-regurgitating robot that their entire approach was wrong because they misunderstood the abstraction or that their code wasn't needed because Larry is refactoring that part of the system to a separate service already.
i think TDD is a great method, but not dogma. likewise with code coverage. being prescriptive about one or the other just leads to angry people who get fed up with the principle and rebel.
don't know much about fly.io, but i would have definitely deployed my go binary + caddy w/config in a container, rather than setup a systemd service on the host. just me?
haven't we already been doing this since email templating was a thing?