ddevault

14 ms·

91.
by ddevault 4y ago
A closed standard is not a standard. That's it. It's a document of little to no relevance that may as well not exist.
92.
by ddevault 4y ago
ISO standards are not standards. Closed standards are not standards. Implementations are not a standard. This is a bad joke.
93.
by ddevault 4y ago
> If that's the intention you can update your original comment to say the "open" standard, because your definition of standard is not universal. And then I would have instantly agreed because I've experienced this fir
94.
by ddevault 4y ago
I'm going to say this as politely as I am able: closed standards can eat a big, steaming plate of shit. If it's not open, it doesn't exist. Period.
95.
by ddevault 4y ago
Have you actually tried to read them? They don't exist. https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/ https://jpeg.org/jpegxl/documentation.html All we have is a whitepaper.
96.
by ddevault 4y ago
JXL had this coming. They should have written specifications. The implementation can never be the standard. I hope everyone watching this learns from their mistake.
97.
by ddevault 4y ago
No?
98.
by ddevault 4y ago
We are incredibly far away from objects like this, so the apparent movement is negligible.
99.
by ddevault 4y ago
Squashing isn't the problem. What you should be doing is trying to make each commit the smallest possible atomic unit of change. Rebase is a useful tool for achieving this -- squashing, splitting, whatever. git add/commit -p also
100.
by ddevault 4y ago
It draws from the (growing in popularity) approach of tagged unions/result types among many languages, but generalizes it a bit and makes it easier to use in an ad-hoc manner.
101.
by ddevault 4y ago
Hare is available in nixpkgs to the best of my knowledge.
102.
by ddevault 4y ago
You probably want to use another language. Hare does not aim to support every use-case, but instead seeks to thrive in its niche. But I would also recommend giving Hare a shot and not writing it off because it lacks generics -- you can do a
103.
by ddevault 4y ago
There might be a need for these ideas, sure. They're worth exploring. But it's a bet, or a gamble: they're exploring novel territory. Hare aims to distill proven ideas into a simple package which represents the best approach
104.
by ddevault 4y ago
git bisect imo relies on having good commit discipline to be as useful as possible, so many novice git users will not find it useful (identifying the bad commit among "fix thing" "add stuff" "aasdfasdfljser", a
105.
Hare is a boring programming language(harelang.org)
29 points by ddevault 4y ago|14 comments
106.
by ddevault 4y ago
git has a lot of stuff, even the experienced can find something new. Have you heard of git bisect yet?
107.
Hare is a boring programming language(harelang.org)
9 points by ddevault 4y ago|0 comments
108.
Codegen in Hare v2(drewdevault.com)
3 points by ddevault 4y ago|0 comments
109.
by ddevault 4y ago
The simplest system uses the fewest moving parts to accomplish the goal. Some of Arch's ideas, like PKGBUILDs, are pretty simple. But ultimately Arch is just another typical mainstream Linux distribution with glibc, GNU coreutils, syst
110.
by ddevault 4y ago
Well, great documentation with the caveat that good upstream documentation is always preferable to the Arch wiki.
111.
by ddevault 4y ago
Small? No. Simple? No. Great documentation? Yes.
112.
by ddevault 4y ago
It's much easier if your first step is to write a grammar for your DSL.
113.
by ddevault 4y ago
Transferring money from suckers to LO.
114.
by ddevault 4y ago
Man, fuck this.
115.
by ddevault 4y ago
No one was upset that he donated from his own money. It was never portrayed as a breach of fiduciary duty. What upset people is that he's a homophobe. No one wanted to work for him, have the fruits of their labor used to undermine thei
116.
by ddevault 4y ago
Here's a few large/largeish projects I find interesting, in no particular order: https://sr.ht/~mil/sxmo/ https://sr.ht/~thestr4ng3r/chiaki/ https://sr.ht/~alex
117.
by ddevault 4y ago
Colocated on owned hardware.
118.
by ddevault 4y ago
>Those probably eliminate this problem for logged-in users—but I’m not one of them, so(?) I don’t see any! These were intentionally removed for logged-out users because they can be a bit confusing -- many users would look at, say, a git
119.
by ddevault 4y ago
Thanks :)
120.
Four Years of Sourcehut(sourcehut.org)
186 points by ddevault 4y ago|28 comments

More ›