Right, I want the convenience of &[&str] , but if it requires creating a second collection then I think &[String] is better. Use cases that require &str can just map to as_str.

Thanks for the feedback.

• I’ll definitely drop the Cypher prefix, and think it’s a good idea to at least move the shorthand attribute macros to a crate feature. The readmes would use derive instead of the shorthand mostly.
• ty::new() just uses the types in the struct (plus &str for String and &[T] for Vec). The extra builder struct is to help with updates, where you may want to just change a couple of fields, or bind it to editable UI fields.

I didn’t realize how strong the rust presence is here. Experienced-devs on reddit is hard to go without :)

My understanding of trunk based development is that it allows for short lived branches and keeps longer work behind feature flags as it is merged in pieces. The common CI approach with pull/merge requests having to pass tests still applies.

That’s the one problem. An LLM enhanced terminal sounds great. Sharing every command with the cloud does not.

You missed the point that op is trying to help the engineers understand where their work comes from and the effects it has. Giving them or letting them be part of the bigger picture aids in the decision making process when doing the actual engineering.

Same here. It’s been 1-2 months and I feel pretty comfortable.

I returned my $4000 MacBook, I don’t like the keyboard layout and thought it had poor performance for the hardware. I would go for a Linux laptop but other than that I prefer Chromebooks and have been using them for 10ish years.

I would get a higher end Chromebook. They run Linux, have a built in android container, nice keyboards, touch screen, often have 360 hinges if that matters to you.

I’ve got the middle one in that pic and it’s almost as fast as my 24 core desktop. Like others said, get 16 gig of ram. Edit: i use VS code which is less beastly than Android studio, but there’s no need to run an emulator because it’s already built in, accelerated.

I’ve had that article saved for years, it’s still the best way to break down documentation imo.

Another key point for code documentation is that the closer it is to the code it’s describing, the more likely it is to be read and maintained. The book “A philosophy of software design” has a section on it.