drunken_thor

Honestly google should have always had a package index even if it points tooling to the repo, but it would maintain the package name with the ability to change where the repo is.

I would agree with you, this just sets up a scenario where the SVP positions themselves as a leader, without having to understand something technical, and without making the decisions on how to change things. It isnt about trust, it is about performing accountability so the SVP can say they did their job.

I think the author of the article is going out of their way to be charitable to the SVP for no reason. That meeting was a reassertion of power, not a wise move made by a sage.

In my limited understanding, static recompiling is like JIT transpilation from one arch to another where emulation runs each instruction calling behaviour depending on the instruction. As for tradeoffs my knowledge is not wide enough to declare anything certain.

This is why there is growing anti-AI sentiment. It is always extractive. You can never just enjoy a poem, you need to use it. You need to extract its value for shareholders. Get a life.

All these words and yet 2 pictures of the car. Show off the mods! Show me the engine bay, the suspension and sway bars!

The terrible thing is that everything is moving to apps so that the developers can get more access to the user's fingerprint and get more data. Get access to photos, location ect. All webpages that suddenly have an app, which in my experience ends up having less functionality than the website, are quite simply there to get data, and be able to push notifications. They are parasitic. I miss the days when an app was the better offering but it isn't anymore.

What a great tool and community they have built. I find my flipper0 is like a computer Swiss Army knife. It’s so fun to carry around a tool of my own trade.

Sdks/libs, especially open source sdks, were never about gated knowledge. They were about the providing company making it as easy as possible for you to integrate. You would not need to know the idiosyncrasies behind api retries, paging, rate limits, auth flow, and on and on. The third party developers needed a resource, they call a method and get it. Open source libraries especially are about pooling knowledge, not gating it. This is propaganda for pooling that knowledge inside a service you have to pay to use, and instead of developers all using and improving the same codebase together, they have to spend money to rewrite the same code repeatedly. This is AI companies further trying to undercut open source because it’s free.

It seems like this was built years ago but only posted now. Why post it now? It doesn’t seem like it has changed much in 4 years so I can’t see that it matured or stabilized over that time. I am sorry for my ignorance of c build systems, this very well might be in high use already. Either way, it looks useful and built by hand so good job! Looks great and I hope people find it useful!

CarPlay is also a contract between mobile devs and automakers. It allows for things like displaying "current playing" on the dash, media buttons on the steering wheel that control apps, and turn by turn directions show on dash and HUD. A screen cast may be able to do this but not in a consistent dependable way.

Also no one is mentioning that maybe we should not encourage users to use 1000s of apps in their car? It would be irresponsible to easily allow users to watch youtube while driving. Keeping the set of apps usable through the car is a responsibility in automobiles that are already becoming too distracting as is.

- Agreed on the bracketed attributes, the close attribute is very useful and devs would reach for the brackets more if they were like as you suggest. - short form fns: you and another commenter have given me good examples. I’m still not sure they are worth the complexity but I understand the use better now. - varargs true! Conceded!

Thanks for the comment! It’s helpful.

Agreed, it keeps the parser fast as well because it is a lot more clear when the boolean statement ends and the code block begins. You either need parentheses, `then` or brackets around the block to make parsing clearly defined.

I think that allowing an if statement to return a value to deal with the ternary introduces a now concept to Lua and that is that the value on the final line of a block is a return value much like Ruby. This changes the logic of the entire language more than adding a ternary. I do prefer the if statement as it allows so much more emergent behaviour, but it does have more implications to consider.

Some of these things are already implemented in PUC Lua. I don't know why they are diverting from lua spec on other aspects though. Why not work together with the PUC Lua team to add some of these to both lua versions and work on bringing their functionality closer to each other instead of further apart. You might as well just make a new language instead. New features will end up not being used in effort to keep lua scripts portable.

In effort to not pollute the github issue, and hopes that the authors read this thread, I will put some of my thoughts here. There are 3 main strengths of Lua: Embeddable, Fast, and Small(easy to learn). I worry some of these changes divert from the last, expanding the language into a more complicated language.

Here is a list of things already implemented in PUC Lua so can be considered safe to add:

  ● ~ a     Bitwise negate
  ● a & b   Bitwise and
  ● a | b   Bitwise or
  ● a ~ b   Bitwise Xor
  ● a << b  Left-shift
  ● a >> b  Logical right-shift
  ● a // b  Floor divide
  ● break   Break statement

Don't get me wrong, I love some of these quality of life changes like:

  ● Const keyword: changing const from `local a <const> = 42` to `const a = 42` is far better syntax. The bracketed syntax was never a good idea.
  ● nil-Coalescing and safe navigation are great additions as they are basically macros at the parsing stage.
  ● Compound assignment is also basically a macro at the parsing stage as well. Lua should already have this honestly.
  ● Ternary Operator: I *like* it and it will help the stumbling block of the `a and b or c` common pattern already in use. Though I think (like others have stated) the If/then/else syntax would be more inline with the language, similar to ruby and would enable far more emergent behaviour. However it does establish a new pattern that the last value in a block is a return value similar to ruby so I am conflicted about that.
  ● `continue` it is nicer than a goto and is helpful.
  ● String interpolation: I honestly don't love lua's concat operator `..` so honestly string interpolation would be a nice to have and a feature of many modern languages. However I do worry about it's effect on parsing performance, and complexity of the language.
  ● Underscores in numbers: *shrug*

These are great ideas for the language but I would want all lua versions to support them, not just JIT. These are things that I think are a distraction:

  ● The `and` `&&` and `or` `||`. This just goes in the wrong direction for lua. It is often confusing in ruby (especially because of precedence issues) but also lua is a wordy language. It has `do` `end` blocks instead of brackets. It adds ambiguity for no reason.
  ● Short form function syntax. Lua does not need this and I am not sure anyone asked for this. Why `a = |x| do ... end` is more helpful than just `a = function(x) ... end` is unclear and would love to hear more about why this is being considered.
  ● Named varargs: It may be nice, but there is no real reason to add this. If you wanted a name for your varargs you could do `local name = ...` or just use the `args` variable already available in every function.
  ● Switch/Match/Select Statements: An optimized if/else block works just as well and another expansion of a small language.