bluejekyll

.exe has bindings to OS ABI and system calls, WASM doesn’t have this by default, it’s up to the VM to provide whatever environment the WASM executable needs, ideally there should be no system calls, no stdio, just instructions on how to interpret the file format.

WASM is platform independent.

What do you mean by C bindings? C bindings to what?

I feel like every language has its fans. What invariably happens is that people want their favorite language to work in every situation that they might need to work.

Personally I would choose Rust as well, but I would choose Rust for almost everything I do. I can see why a Go developer would want a similar experience.

I guarantee that there are a ton of sites out there not monitoring their certs.

GPL is copy left, it has a stated goal of encouraging more software to be OSS, including new contributions. That’s what I meant by software remains open. MIT on the other hand can be used in closed source situations. While the original code will remain open, future changes are not required to be open source.

A discussion on licenses will go sideways very quickly. GPL does limit the adoption of software in certain environments. So it really depends on your goals. Do you want an OSS project that will be useable by everyone (including corporations) or do you want to guarantee that the software will always be OSS and guarantee that Corporations can’t benefit from it without contributing back (potentially requiring them to open their own proprietary code).

There’s a lot of moral perspective that people apply to this decision, but not all developers have the same goals for their software. MIT is more flexible in its use than GPL, but doesn’t help ensure that software remains open.

I found the title for this post misleading. To clarify it a bit, AI has only improved productivity by 10% even though 93% of devs are using it.

This is ultimately the thing that needs to be fixed. The exemption for small trucks was stupid, and it should have been reserved for literal farm equipment (as that was intended). The fact that SUVs slip by on this now has created such a dumb market.

> I need that little bubble that separates me from other people.

I get the same independent feeling from others you describe while riding my bike (not a bubble, but that’s a false sense of security in a car giving the 40kish car occupants who die every year in the US). In fact, I generally enjoy that bike experience more than I ever do driving because I never get stuck in car traffic, never get stuck behind a line of cars at a traffic signal. Never need to work about parking, other than finding a secure place to lock up (which some destinations lack). I used to love driving, but I started commuting by bike for work and realized over time that I enjoy biking so much more that I go weeks at this point without ever driving.

FWIW I live in a smaller American city of about 120k people, but is part of a greater metro area.

I really like this advice, but aren’t these two examples the same, but yet different advice?

// Good? for walrus in walruses { walrus.frobnicate() }

Is essentially equivalent to

// BAD for walrus in walruses { frobnicate(walrus) }

And this is good,

// GOOD frobnicate_batch(walruses)

So should the first one really be something more like

// impl FrobicateAll for &[Walrus] walruses.frobicate_all()

I suspect that Mark Twain would even greatly appreciate the humor in referring to it that way.

The American Heritage Dictionary is far better than Merriam-Webster in my experience.

Rust pretty much nails all of those.

“The tea bags used for the research were made from the polymers nylon-6, polypropylene and cellulose.”

They aren’t pure plastic.