First semester of my cs degree, it was around 50/50. After 3 semesters very few women were left. Spoiler: it was not because they could not handle the courses.

Async rust might suck, compared to async in higher level languages, but for someone comming from C, async rust simplifies a lot of stuff. It often feels like a lot of criticisms of rust boils down to the fact that rist was sold to both people using low and high level languages. I don't doubt that async rust is shit when all you want is a faster typescript.

Edit: I certainly also have my criticisms of rust and its async implementation, and I think some of the authors concerns are valid, it was just an observation about the tension between the needs of the two groups of users.

I usually use Json5. It's JSON, but with all the weird quirks fixed (comments added, you can use hex numbers, you can have trailing commas etc.)

I think the truth is that not only can't WASM manipulate the DOM, but javascript was build to manipulate the DOM and has been moulded around this purpose. Secondly, if you want to use WASM from another programming language, that is just another language you need to learn on top of javascript, because we are not at a stage where we can replace javascript (because of the DOM). Fo most it's more cost effective to just optimize their javascript code instead of adding another layer to the tech stack.

What's wrong with man ascii?

The usual answer is mocking using something like FFF or cmock. Mocking allows you to write tests where you can swap out the implementation of certain functions. The two frameworks I linked will auto generate code to assert that the function was called a certain number of times or with the right arguments.

I think this is enviable with low level languages. You simply can't abstract away as many things.

Why would I, an embedded developer working on devices with at most a couple of mb of flash, need to learn SQL?

I think most applications store it in plain text, but makes sure the file is only readable by the current user. This way, we rely on the protection of the OS, instead of doing it ourselves. (I'm not a desktop app developer, so I might be completely wrong, but I think this is what e.g. Firefox does).

Is that always suppose to be shown? My counter example (the one that prompted this thread) is embassy_executor::Executor. When looking in the docs i dont see anywhere that its locked behind a feature flag, you have to look in the source

How would they add runtime checking without breaking all existing code?

But I think warning people is a good start, because those checks can be added to your CI pipeline and reject any incoming code that contains warnings. That way you can enforce type checking for a subset of modules and keep backwards compatibility.

What have you done to harden Firefox? And what exactly are you trying to view?

Sure, you can autogenerated js bindings, but as soon as you need to start debugging or optimizing you need to understand the js that was generated for you.

One of C's main painpoints is that development is slow. I work in embedded and there people usually use python or another scripting language along c, to handle tasks where performance and memory footprint os not an issue and you just want to build something, and then save c for when you really need it.

I'm saying that appears conscious and is conscious could very well be the same thing, we don't know, so in this imaginary world, I would not trust anyone who told me "don't worry, you can torture them, they are not actually conscious".

No. I'm very certain that my Roomba is not conscious. But If we can't tell whether or not these people are conscious or not, then I don't think it's right to have this power over them. A better parallel than a Roomba would be an animal.

The pairs version linked (which Is my daily driver), I don't think it's bad at all

I'm from Europe i literal don't know anyone who uses WhatsApp.

How do you test that? How do you know that people around you actually have conscious and not just seem to have? If you can't experience anything, how do you fake conscious? And is this fake conscious really any less real than ours? I think anything that resembles conscious well enough to fool people could be argued to be real, even if it's different to ours.

I think it matters a great deal! I would like to believe that not only would I not use such a system, I would actively fight to have it made illegal.