LogicHound

I am aware. I probably should have said "inspired".

They updated the graphic to include HPV style vehicles that are more aerodynamic than bicycles (usually just a bicycle with an aero-shell). I am not sure why this has come up now because I have an old bicycle book my Grandmother bought for me back in the late 90s that discusses these vehicles and it was known then they were more efficient.

> This article is putting a metric of efficiency, while ignoring the reasons why things like a dog may have less efficent locomotion over perfectly flat terrain, because there are very few natural landmarks that have perfectly flat terrain.

You can't control for this stuff and measure it really.

> I'd love to see a deeper comparison, how does efficiency of locomotion compare between animals within different types of environments, obstacles, etc.

Again this is difficult to control for. Other than particular areas where bicycle won't work (and there are very few places where that would apply), the bicycle is still likely to win out. Even if you have to get off occasionally to navigate over/under/around an obstacle you get all the benefits of efficiency for the majority of the time.

`var` doesn't have weird scoping issues, it just different than other languages. `var` is function scoped, thus all var declarations are hoisted to the top of the function during execution.

This is why the single var pattern used to be recommended.

> Pure efficiency in locomotion is a terrible measure, is a person on a bicycle more efficient traversing a forest?

Quite possibly. I would imagine it depends on the forest. I've been in forested areas on the mountain bike and you can cycle through these areas fine.

> It's the classic physics issue - you are ignoring air resistance, but in this case you are ignoring everything other than a perfectly paved road.

Rolling resistance is mainly down to the types of tyres used, how wide they are and how much they are inflated. Surface doesn't make that much of a difference IMO unless it is on a really lose surface e.g. loose gravel, mud or ice.

The biggest improvements to cycling efficiency is usually either being in a recumbent bicycle (less air resistance as you are led down) or by being in a more more Aero position with lycra on. But air resistance only becomes a big thing past 20mph or if you are wearing clothing that is really baggy.

Bicycles are the most efficient forms of transport in energy per mile. They are often the fastest in built up areas as well.

The issue is that I dislike the overall mentality of just adding a bunch of language features. Things just seem to be dumped in each release and I think to myself "When I am going to use that?".

> Would you say that these samples show no benefit to using the "is" operator?

I didn't say no benefit. I said dubious benefit.

I didn't really want to get into discussing specific operators, but lets just use your date example:

   if (date is { Month: 10, Day: <=7, DayOfWeek: DayOfWeek.Friday }) { ... }

This following would do the same thing before the is operator:

    static bool IsFirstFridayOfOctober(DateTime date)
    {
        return date.Month == 10
            && date.Day <= 7
            && date.DayOfWeek == DayOfWeek.Friday;
    }

And then:

    if IsFirstFridayOfOctober(date) {
       ...
    }

I understand it is more verbose. But do we really need a new operator for this? I was getting on fine without it.

Each release there seems to be more of these language features and half the time I have a hard time remembering that they even exist.

Each time I meet with other .NET developers either virtually or in Person they all seem to be salivating over this stuff and I feel like I've walked in on some sort of cult meeting.

> The chip is expected to power future Microsoft Surface products scheduled for release in 2026.

It looks like it is intended to run Windows Arm.

I use it to generate me example code e.g. how do I do <thing> in <programming language> using <library>.

I've also had it suggest solutions e.g. "This C++/OpenGL code doesn't run in wayland can you suggest some solutions".

Other stuff like generating tests is hit and miss.

I find there are some environments where you have a positive feedback loop while working in them. PHP is one of them, Go is another at least for me.

I find many of languages I am constantly fighting with dependency managers, upgrades and all sorts of other things.

There is a huge amount of syntactic sugar that has been added over the years that doesn't do whole lot IMO. It is often imported from other languages (usually JavaScript and/or Python).

e.g. Just a very simple example to illustrate the point

    if (customer != null)
    {
        customer.Order = GetCurrentOrder();
    }

vs

    if (customer is not null)
    {
        customer.Order = GetCurrentOrder();
    }

Is there really any benefit in adding "is/is not"? I would argue no. So I categorise that as being of "dubious benefit" and there are many similar small features, keywords etc. that get added each release where they might save a few lines of code somewhere but I've never seem them used that often.

Much like PHP, you can actually get stuff done unlike a lot of other programming languages.

>Sure, there are a lot of people that use Linux indirectly e.g. deploy to a Linux box, use Docker or a VM. But if someone isn't running Windows, 9 times out of 10 they are running a Mac.

That was my original comment. It is pretty easy to that to assume that when someone says "none" in a subsequent comment they mean "almost none" following that statement.

I can't stand modern C#. They've bung in a bunch of new keywords and features that are of dubious benefit every release.

> It's funny how functional programming is slowly becoming the best practice for modern code (pure functions, no side-effects),

I once mentioned both these concepts to a room of C# developers. Two of them were senior to me and it was a blank expression from pretty much everyone.

> yet functional programming languages are still considered fringe tech for some reason.

You can use the same concepts in non-functional programming languages without having to buy into all the other gumpf around functional programming languages. Also other programming languages have imported functional concepts either into the language itself or into the standard libraries.

Past that. It is very rare to be able to get a job using them. The number of F# jobs I've seen advertised over the last decade, I could count on one hand.

I never said that nobody uses Linux. I said that it was extremely uncommon even amongst developers.