I wonder if these trillion dollar companies offer support contracts for astroturfing on social media on their behalf. I can't think of any other way so many people are supporting their sociopathic attitude.

They aren't talking about using recursion instead of loops. They are talking about the map method for iterators. For each element yielded by the iterator, map applies a specified function/closure and collects the results in a new iterator (usually a list). This is a functional programming pattern that's common in many languages including Python and Rust.

This pattern has no risk of stack overflow since each invocation of the function is completed before the next invocation. The construct does expand to some sort of loop during execution. The only possible overhead is a single function call within the loop (whereas you could have written it as the loop body). However, that won't be a problem if the compiler can inline the function.

The fact that this is functional programming creates additional avenues to optimize the program. For example, a chain of maps (or other iterator adaptors) can be intelligently combined into a single loop. In practice, this pattern is as fast as hand written loops.

Mir is not a good example of distro engineering, because it's an extreme case of NIH syndrome. Unlike what it is today, the original Mir was an alternative to Wayland.

The story started when Canonical decided that X isn't good enough and they needed an alternative. They chose Wayland first, exciting the entire Linux desktop community. But then they dropped Wayland in favor of the new in-house Mir project, citing several drawbacks to Wayland. The Wayland community responded with several articles explaining why Canonicals concerns were unwarranted. But in typical Canonical style, they simply neglected all the replies and stuck with Mir.

This irked the entire Linux community who promised to promote Wayland and not support Mir at all. This continued for a while until Canonical realized their mistake late, like always. Then they repurposed Mir as a Wayland compositor.

Now this is a repeating story. You see this with Flatpak vs Snap, Incus vs LXD, etc. The amount of high handedness we see from Canonical is incredible.

Interesting that they started dictating what you can and can't do with YOUR program! Consumer rights are a joke to these quasi-monopolies.

Why no Ada or Janet? Or Haskell or Idris?

Nobody knows about unifiedpush. Last time I checked, their Linux dbus distributor also wasn't ready. There has to be a unified push to get it adopted.

CUDA is an API to run high performance compute code on Nvidia GPUs. CUDA is proprietary. So CUDA programs run only on Nvidia GPUs. Open alternatives like vulkan compute and opencl aren't as popular as CUDA.

Translation layers are interface software that allow CUDA programs to run on non-Nvidia GPUs. But creating such layers require a bit of reverse engineering of CUDA programs. But they are prohibiting this now. They want to ensure that all the CUDA programs in the world are limited to using Nvidia GPUs alone - classic vendor lock-in by using EULA.

Here's one issue they hope to solve with this rewrite: https://github.com/...

they don’t feel like your fighting the language

I really understand what you mean wrt Rust. I really do - I was there once. But it's a phase you grow out of. Not just that - the parts you fight now will eventually become your ally.

and let me feel sort of creative in the way I do things

I had the same experience with C/C++. But as the design grows, you start hitting memory-safety bugs that are difficult to avoid while coding - even after you learn how those bugs arise in the first place. Just a lapse of concentration is enough to introduce such a bug (leaks, use-after-free, deadlocks, races, etc). I've heard that C++ got a bit better after the introduction of smart pointers and other safety features. But, it comes nowhere near the peace of mind you get with garbage collected languages.

That's where Rust's borrow checker and other safety measures kick in. The friction disappears when you acquire system knowledge - concepts of stack, heap, data segment, aliasing, ownership, mutation, etc. These knowledge are essential for C/C++ too. But the difference here is that Rust will actually tell you if you made a mistake. You don't get that with C/C++. The ultimate result is that when a Rust program compiles successfully, it almost always works as you expect it to (barring logical errors). You spend significantly less time debugging or worrying about your program misbehaving at runtime.

The 'friction' in Rust also helps in another way. Sometimes, you genuinely need to find a way out when the compiler complains. That happens when the language is too restrictive and incapable of doing what you need. You use things like unsafe, Rc and Refcell for that. However, most of the time, you can work around the problem that the compiler is indicating. In my experience, such 'workarounds' are actually redesigns or refactors that improve the structure of your code. I find myself designing the code best when I'm using Rust.

If any FOSS project maintainers see this, please stop using Discord for your community.

Funny. I have the opposite experience with git. Use GUI for simple tasks and drop to CLI when it's complicated or when something goes wrong.

While I don't want to deny the problems of not having namespaces, they will introduce a new set of problems. One issue with Github and similar platforms with namespaces is that a search for a repo turns up multiple projects with the same name under different namespaces. It's always a confusion as to which one is canonical. Another problem is that people are now going to name squat namespaces instead of project names. Imagine somebody registers the serde namespace. Their crates may be mistaken as the canonical one.

Discord is absolute trash if you're a user searching for solutions. It simply doesn't turn up in web searches. Why would you want your users to ask the same questions again and again?

All the problems mentioned here are common to various tech jobs and possibly other fields as well. It's nothing specific to programming. All problems mentioned are societal issues and not inherent problems of any profession. Things like student loans, hustle culture that leads to burnout, over compartmentalization of work, clueless managers, etc. We need a social revolution, not a career change.

I can recommend Rust - I'm training a few people on it.

And a pure functional programming language like Haskell or Scheme, if you don't know what functional programming is, or are not comfortable with it. Functional programming needs a different mental approach to traditional (imperative) programming paradigm. Some of the more modern languages like Rust, JS and Python incorporate a lot of functional programming constructs. So it makes sense to learn them.

And a lisp - Common Lisp's popularity is a public secret. Scheme is also fine. This family is homoiconic (program and data are treated more less the same). The syntax is actually very close to its AST. This gives Lisp unparalleled metaprogramming capabilities - mostly through macros. Macros in traditional languages are nowhere near Lisp Macros.

If it interests you, study a stack based language like Forth or Factor. Though they feel very different from Lisps, they have similar underlying properties. And you get more or less the same advantages.

You think that's going to convince them? Plenty of people consider Apple as the second coming of the messiah. They would cheer if Apple dropped a bucket load of crap on their desk.

I don't think that this is a hard rule. They probably look for the same signs that we do - plausible sounding utter gibberish. They just don't want the drop in quality due to that. If an author creates content with AI, but takes their time to edit and improve it, I think that the Gentoo team may give it a pass.

So many praises for Windows and Mac about 'premium features', 'corporate environment' and 'device support'. But not enough talk about how they treat customers like crap and cash cows. Windows is replete with spyware and ads. It doesn't respect the user's choices, like when not to do an update or opening the links with a browser of user's choice. Heck! Some versions don't even allow you to register users without a cloud account. And now they are taking definite steps towards ensuring that you can't do anything they don't approve - with TPM and pluton non-sense. Praising windows is like being in an abusive relationship and finding justifications for it.

Mac is on the other extreme. They lock down their platform more and more in every revision in the name of security. It's getting harder to side-load apps. Why? For security, of course! No mention of how security comes primarily from platform design. Then there is the hardware, where everything is glued, soldered, riveted, digitally locked, etc, etc. Any small issue, and it's garbage. Not even parts from another genuine Mac can be used. Macs also have the strange distinction of needing calibration and signing of any part that can be replaced at all. It's deliberately designed to extract more money from you and create a tonne load of e-waste (iWaste?). Mac fanbois have a habit of justifying it in the name of 'miniaturization' and progress. Honestly, that's just hand-wavy and completely wrong technical argument. And Apple says it is all for 'privacy' and 'security' while their actual reason is the pursuit of double-digit growth (not just profits). So, in effect, Apple is saying to their customers "Oh honey! You're are just too stupid to take care of it. So let me just decide for you" - all the while squeezing you for money. Does it end there? Oh no! They need developers to pay a yearly fee and want to take a huge cut from their profits. All that for "providing the engineering, platform and services". As if the exorbitant price they extract from their customers isn't enough.

The hardware situation on Linux distros and frankly even BSDs isn't as bad as it is projected by some. Most devices just work even on a live installation medium. Even Nvidia works. (Have you considered the possibility that if any device doesn't work, it's the manufacturer's fault and not the OS's? There are plenty of devices for which the community maintains the drivers, just because the device manufacturer isn't an utter trashbag). There are tonnes of games too - thanks to Valve and Proton. And as for the 'corporate env', you are probably just locked in or too used to them. There are users who have been on these platforms for decades now without complaints. And there are companies built entirely on them. Can you say the same about any of the company that makes your OS/devices? Is there one among them that doesn't use Linux or BSDs?

Look! I'm not claiming that everything is rosy on the Linux and BSD side of things. Sometimes you have to find an alternative way of doing things (there are plenty of options). Sometimes, you have to configure a lot. Sometimes, you have to carefully choose your hardware so that your life is easier with Linux and BSDs. But there is one thing they don't ask you to do- and that is to surrender your self-respect. You don't get treated like cash cow. You don't get spied on as if you are a thief. You don't get restricted like a school kid. You're not told that your choices are wrong. Your choices are not disrespected. You don't get treated like you owe them after you paid your hard earned money on the devices they make. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide if the little conveniences are bigger than your self-respect.

People are quick to judge without considering the circumstances. Wasn't the customer's attitude equally wrong? Aren't you implying that the service person should have let her bully him?

After reading the comments on several communities including Lemmy, reddit, YouTube and several others, I don't get the feeling that FOSS users are as enthusiastic about discord as you portray. Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps it's a restriction that you impose on your users?

Besides, all the bells and whistles of Discord don't solve the biggest gripe that I have with it - the searchability and discoverability of questions and answers. Despite the history recording in Discord, it acts essentially as an information black hole. People's efforts in solving problems are just lost because they can't be found again.

And finally, there's one thing that corporate social media has proven time and again. Eventually all of them pivot for some reason or another. Perhaps they want to monetize the platform on unacceptable terms (like reddit recently). That will happen to discord too some day. They are holding the community content hostage. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they won't ever try to make money off it, cutting the community from it.