I fell for it. It’s crazy to think how heavily I’ve been trained to believe everything I see is wrong in the most embarrassing and laughable way possible. That’s pretty depressing if you think about it.

Yeah, I’ve seen a lot of those videos where they do things like {} + [], but why would anyone care what JS does in that case? Unless you’re a shit-ass programmer, you’re never going to be running code like that.

By this same logic, memory safety issues in C/C++ aren’t a problem either, right? Just don’t corrupt memory or dereference null pointers. Only “a shit-ass programmer” would write code that does something like that.

Real code has complexity. Variables are written to and read from all sorts of places and if you have to audit several functions deep to make sure that every variable won’t be set to some special value like that, then that’s a liability of the language that you will always have to work around carefully.

It’s a very interesting question. In terms of which game I’d rather play, it’s SMW. But in terms of technical achievement, SMB3 is unquestionably better (in my opinion of course).

SMB1 was a watershed moment for gaming - perhaps the biggest that there ever was. SMB3 was a revolutionary improvement on top of that. In light of that, SMW almost feels like a bland port. This isn’t to say it’s bad by any means, but in terms of the impact that it had on gaming as a whole, it’s not very significant and just feels like an iterative improvement.

SMW is still a great game! And if I could only play one for the rest of my life, I would choose it over SMB3. But in terms of historical impact on gaming, I would say that SMB1, Mario64 and SMB3 were more revolutionary.

Yoshi’s Island is my favorite however.

I’m not worried about who comes next after Linus. What I am worried about is who comes after GKH…

The Linux Foundation currently lists 6 total fellows (4 not including Torvalds and GKH). I have never even heard of any of them before. I know there are lots of developers on the Linux project, but it’s also a very political position, so I wonder who would take that mantle. Probably nothing to worry about too much, but interesting to think about.

I don’t even know where to start to make vim or neovim do all that. If it can’t do that seamlessly and just as well, vimlike editors will never be a replacement for a proper IDE. It’s fast, capable single file and small scope editor for me.

If you’re interested in learning how to do it, I found this guide extremely helpful for getting started. it’s in both blog and video format, and it shows how to install Lazy (a package manager for vim), and which plugins to install to get LSP working (which is what would provide all the hotkeys that you were mentioning above).

It’s definitely not a task for the faint of heart, but I found it very rewarding once I figured out how to work with the plugin systems because it’s so powerful and easy to customize. I found it helpful to just watch the video a few times to see everything working, then slowly started building up my own configuration (which was a bit more minimal than the linked guide I provided - I only installed about 30-40% of the plugins he listed on that page).

Another alternative is Lazyvim, which provides an out-of-the-box configuration experience for you. It installs a lot of plugins and most things should work out of the box with very little configuration. It is a massive beast though, but still pretty good for a first start.

The funny thing is, before Google existed, people had no idea if their marketing attempts were working. Maybe they had some ways of knowing or guessing, but there was no way to know how accurate their metrics were. Internet-based advertising, and tracking-based advertising in particular was supposed to change that.

And now that we sit here with a duopoly of advertising giants, we’re back to the stage where marketers just have to trust that their provider is giving them good helpful information. And how are they supposed to know whether they really can believe it or not? They can’t of course! So we’ve come right back to where we’ve started.

But considering they still spent tons of money before Google and Facebook gave them these “analytics”, it looks like they probably don’t even care that much.

Another thing, he confirms something I was worried about, in his comments on parallelism / Python without the Global Interpreter Lock (aka GIL): Some developments in the language serve rather the big companies, than the community and open source projects. For example, lock-less multi-threading in Python serves mostly the largest companies, while having little value for small projects.

Absolutely agree. The significance of the GIL is heavily overstated in my opinion. There’s a narrow set of use-cases where it matters, ie. if you must use threads and something like multiprocessing or a message queue (ie. Celery) doesn’t do what you need. These are pretty rare circumstances, from my experience at least.

One principle I try to apply (when possible) comes from when I learned Haskell. Try to keep the low-level logical computations of your program pure, stateless functions. If their inputs are the same, they should always yield the same result. Then pass the results up to the higher level and perform your stateful transformations there.

An example would be: do I/O at the high level (file, network, database I/O), and only do very simple data transformations at these levels (avoid it altogether if possible). Then do the majority of the computational logic in lower level, modular components that have no external side effects. Also, pass all the data around using read-only records (example: Python dataclasses with frozen=True) so you know that nothing is being mutated between these modules.

This boundary generally makes it easier to test computational logic separately from stateful logic. It doesn’t work all the time, but it’s very helpful in making it easier to understand programs when you can structure programs this way.

Interesting, I had never heard of ccache before, though yes, all good build systems (CMake, Ninja, etc.) should cache intermediate object files.

But the projects I was working on were so large that even binary and unit test executables were so large that even they would take ~20 seconds to link. You can’t use caching to alleviate that buildtime cost unfortunately.

Sure, but as with all things, it can depend on a lot of factors. All code needs some degree of testing, though one could certainly argue that Python needs more than Java and Java needs more than Rust/Haskell/etc. So you could argue that the productivity gain of using Python is offset by the productivity loss of extra testing. It’s still hard to say which one wins out in the end.

Python’s type system is dramatically better than Javascript’s though. Try doing things like '' + True and Javascript will do incredibly stupid things. Python will just give you a type error. Also, look at things like == vs === in Javascript as well. That’s the biggest reason why Typescript replaced it overnight. Python has found a better balance between productivity and error safety.

In my opinion, the biggest shortcoming of Python’s dynamic typing system is that you need to have very thorough test coverage to be sure that your code doesn’t have semantic errors (a lot more than, say, Java). It has gotten better with the introduction of type hints, those I don’t have much experience with them, so I can’t say how much.

Having worked on large C++ projects, the solution to this issue is using a good IDE with an LSP. But it is quite a regrettable situation because setting up an LSP can be a difficult, and they also tend to break quite easily. Understanding how to make an LSP work is an important productivity skill in those kinds of positions.

Distribution usually isn’t considered a strong point for Python, though.

It depends. If it’s a simple script with no external dependencies, then it’s very easy to distribute. But if your application has external dependencies and you are trying to install it on your host (and you aren’t using docker or similar technologies), then yes, it’s harder than just shipping an executable or .jar file. The fact that Python’s standard library is so comprehensive helps a lot in this regard, but it only works up to a certain point.

Yeah, you can use it both for full applications (web or desktop) as well as simple scripts. The flow of getting from something simple to a full blown application is pretty smooth and natural - better than just starting out in Java or C++ and taking at least an hour before you get anything that runs.

My opinion: Python may not be the best at everything it does, but it’s in the top 3-5 languages in the following areas:

• Very easy to install, write and understand
• Great libraries for a lot of applications
• Large community, lots of people with experience in it

It will always be a practical choice for those reasons. There are probably a lot more as well that I can’t think of at the moment.

As others have mentioned, this is a matter of threat model. To be realistic, a sufficiently determined government will always be able to access your communications, but companies like Facebook and Google can only access them if you give it to them willingly. On the other hand, if other people you communicate with do this by themselves, then you’ve gone through all that effort for nothing. It’s also worth pointing out that it cannot be proven that a regular phone does not have corporate spyware installed, so this may be another way your information could leak to companies.

That said, it is pretty insulting that tech companies have decided that they’re simply entitled to everyone’s private communication data. That for me is probably the biggest motivator in trying to avoid their services as much as possible.

Pathlib is very nice indeed, but I can understand why a lot of languages don’t do similar things. There are major challenges implementing something like that. Cross-platform functionality is a big one, for example. File permissions between Unix systems and Windows do not map perfectly from one system to another which can be a maintenance burden.

But I do agree. As a user, it feels great to have. And yes, also in general, the things Python does with its standard library are definitely the way things should be done, from a user’s point of view at least.

With regards to work arrangements, I’m open to considering all options at this point (both in terms of time and location). My original line of thought is to start with some contracting work on the side, and then slowly growing into a more full-time commitment if/when I find contracts that I like.

UK-based advice would be perfectly fine for me! I’ve worked in both the EU and North America, and I have one friend who lives in the USA while working for companies in the EU, so crossing that time difference doesn’t seem to create too much of an issue. The hard part for me at the moment is just finding a source of contracts. I have been reaching out to a lot of acquaintances in my network but so far haven’t really manage to find anyone that’s willing to provide a contract just yet, so that’s mostly what I’m interested in knowing at the moment.

Of course. It’s all about control. They see users as property, an object to be sold and traded.

Do not ever allow yourselves to be disrespected like this.

It’s a large and very complicated piece of software with a single implementation. It’s practically impossible to fork, so users are forced to adopt whatever changes the maintainers decide to implement. This could include things like forced dependencies (incompatible with mulb libc for example), or other poor design choices (like binary logging, which is very controversial). And it forces its adoption in places that do not want it (as in cases like the one we’re discussing here, where it’s becoming harder and harder for Gnome to be used without it).

I’m not going to argue about whether systemd is good software or not. But the biggest problem with it is that it’s basically a way for Red Hat to exert control over the entire Linux ecosystem.

Think of it like Chrome/Chromium. Everybody naïvely thought we were never be where we are today when it was announced, but look at where we are today. While it’s technically open source and an excellent browser, above all, it’s a tool for Google to exert its control over the WWW, such as disabling adblockers, implementing DRM, deciding which CSS/Javascript APIs should (or should not) be adopted, etc. systemd could very well be Red Hat’s vehicle for imposing similar requirements on desktop Linux.