I don’t think it’s a dumb question.

Unfortunately I’m not sure there’s any guaranteed method to establish trustworthiness. It’s especially difficult because if there was, it would probably be easy for the scams to utilise and thus it would stop being a good method.

Anyways, I would say try to look at the people behind the software - do they have personal websites or do they work on other stuff that also seems reliable? What about the users, do they seem legitimate? Are the issues actual issues, not fake ones? Does the code seem maintained on a regular basis with non-trivial commits? Can you find online third party mentions that seem trustworthy?

That’s just what I could think of. But essentially, there is no silver bullet and you’ll just need to make a thorough assessment and decide if you trust it enough.

It’s always been possible for these companies to pull the proverbial license rug from under the community’s feet. It was just a matter of time before they did it.

Point is, you can’t trust one powerful entity, especially not when money is involved.

Often they don’t even comprehend just how much “common knowledge” isn’t actually common outside their social spaces.

I see this literally all the time in the documentation that my coworkers write. I think it’s kinda wild. Like do people really not have this self awareness? Or am I just as bad without realizing it? That’s what scares me.

Wait, in pattern context? How? Can you give an example?

Check out the faq in the readme https://github.com/tgxn/lemmy-explorer

I wish people would focus less on the performance. Performance is the least interesting aspect of Rust.

Unfortunately when it comes to my manager, I can’t just ignore what he says as his opinions actually has an influence on what technology we use and such.

Can’t you just use try/catch blocks

No, because what if whatever you’re calling is updated and suddenly it throws a new exception where before it didn’t? Python or JavaScript or other interpreted languages will never warn you about that.

if the data structure of whatever you’re working with isn’t what you expected?

That sounds like a whole lot of boilerplate I have to write to verify every time that something is what I expect. Static typing does that for me much easier and more reliably.

Some languages like Rust have so good type systems that often when a program compiles, it just works. You don’t have to run the code to know that it functions if you only make a small change.

What kind of systems have you worked in? In small systems, the static analysis doesn’t matter as much, but the benefits become bigger and bigger the more code there is to analyze.

Think about it: if you don’t need a compiler and the hundreds of dependencies that will eventually break things will last way more time.

You can have hundreds of dependencies whether you use a compiled or interpreted language, that really has nothing to do with that.

Also compilation has lots of benefits, including being able to do lots of static analysis to find bugs. I definitely don’t agree that we should move away from compilation in general or WebAssembly specifically. WebAssembly doesn’t have to be only used for low level stuff, you can write your code in a high level language and compile to WebAssembly just fine.

Your manager is a fad.

If only…

I don’t think adblockers rely on interpreting JavaScript, I think they would still work even if a site used WebAssembly.

Source: I can assure you every single ad-funded website would be doing this if that was the case.

The issue with TypeScript/Sass etc. is that it requires a compiler and that’s totally obnoxious and completely defeats the point of having interpreted code on browsers.

Shouldn’t WebAssembly be a solution to this? I.e. so you don’t have to interpret code but rather run the wasm binary (which is kinda interpretation as well but you get what I mean).

It breaks down when you do runtime reflection, like getattr(obj, "x").

The real problem is when you start using runtime reflection, like getattr(obj, "x")

Overall nothing really “exciting”, but good stuff anyway.

Did you really make this just for the meme?

If their framework is using Vulkan, why is it not compatible with anything but MacOS? Isn’t the point of Vulkan that it’s cross platform?

Bit of a necro but I was just answering the question in the title

Why in the world wouldn’t you just use Vulkan? Then it would still be portable to other platforms with probably still good performance, no?

But Optimizing memory for cache hits becomes a lot more difficult in Rust

Why is this?