Giving bombs to Israel without condition is a… 6 point story I think

Our bug is their status quo.

Cognitive dissonance.

For a lot of people, either they accept “this trillion dollar corporation that controls all my computers, and the programming languages I use, and my code editor, is evil”. Or they accept “this trillion dollar company does lots of good things for me and is good”.

One is easier to accept than the other.

At first I though it said “Communism is the key to efficiency in a software engineering organization”; at first I thought it said something new

then x is created in the scope in your snippet

Saying “x is defined somewhere in the entire program” isn’t satisfactory to many users. Also, you didn’t tell me what type x has. Can I do x + 5?

if random() > 0.5:
    x = 2
else:
    x = "hello"

Where is the definition of x? What is the type of x? If you can’t identify it, neither can the LSP.

This kind of thing actually happens when implementing interfaces, inheritance, etc. Thus, LSPs in dynamic languages are best effort both theoretically and in practice.

Command line is a GUI, change my mind

I agree. 100 lines of code may be 3x better than 300 lines of code, but 1 line of code isn’t 3x better than 3 lines of code.

Yes. I learned this from Haskell. I like Haskell, but it has a lot of very granular functions.

Earlier comment said that breaking up 1 function into 3 improves readability? Well, if you really want readability then break it up into 30 functions using Haskell. Your single function with 25 lines will become 30 functions, so readable (/s).

In truth, there’s a balance between the two. Breaking things up into function does have advantages, but, as you say, it makes it more likely that you’ll have to jump around a lot to understand a single process.

Shorter code is almost always better.

Should you use a class? Should you use a Factory pattern or some other pattern? Should you reorganize your code? Whichever results in the least code is probably best.

A nice thing about code length is it’s objective. We can argue all day about which design pattern makes more sense, but we can agree on which of two implementations is shorter.

It takes a damn good abstraction to beat having shorter code.

The precompiled implementation is the only supported way to use the macros that are published in serde_derive

That statement is straight up gaslighting.

The precompiled binary is only provided for one platform, Linux. Windows does not use a precompiled binary but compiles its own from the source. How can he claim it’s the “only supported way”, when for most platforms he is doing it another way? Also, the crate, throughout most of its life, has been doing it another way.

I’ve had in my mind a political cartoon; two panels:

The first panel is The Free Market Ideal. Dozens of carts and woodend stands selling fresh fruit, food, hand made goods, etc. There’s lots of energetic people moving about and talking and haggling with merchants over prices and comparing prices and looking at all their choices.

The second panel is The Free Market Reality. A bunch of tired people standing in line for one of two computer terminals.

The truths portrayed is that there is no bargaining with the monopolies that dominate our markets, their processes are automated. This is not a market of equals, the people are tired and manipulated. As for choice, sometimes you can choose between 2 or 3 companies, sometimes there’s only 1 option.

The things that happen in a healthy free market are not happening.

if they’re going to push for this tracking approach I guess it’ll be back to fix Firefox again

If they will? They will. They are.

Time to follow through on your words. I expect a reply written using Firefox.

I see what you mean. I said “a lot of praise”, but maybe that is too strong. Show respect, but keep the praise honest.

Too many people go for the “brutally honest” approach, never even considering the “honest but respectful” approach.

Expressing concerns to skip level + a little shade towards boss = backstabber

Expressing concerns to skip level + a lot of praise and respect for boss = excellent employee seeking to solve problems

I like the book “Crucial Conversations”, in a sentence it teaches how to be 100% honest, and 100% respectful. How can you be both honest and respectful with either your boss or your skip level boss? Don’t leave out the show of respect.

Which is fine. If they wanted to learn Rust and wrote inefficient code, good for them. I appreciate their efforts. Rust can certainly be beaten into shape and perform well enough in the end.