lytigas

I've read a few small overviews of jj. One thing that's off-putting as a git lover is that while git is truly append-only (except refs), jj seems quite "mutable" by comparison.

Say I'm messing around with the commit that introduced a bug, somewhere deep in the history. With git, it's basically impossible to mess up the repo state. Even if I commit, or commit --amend, my downstream refs still point to the old history. This kind of sucks for making stacked PRs (hello git rebase -i --autosquash --update-refs) but gives me a lot of confidence to mess around in a repo.

With jj, it seems like all I would have to do is forget to "jj new" before some mass find+replace, and now my repo is unfixable. How does jj deal with this scenario?

I was under the impression Waymo was the leader. Who are they behind and how?

> A C programmer who doesn't check the validity of pointers passed to functions and subsequently causes a NULL dereference is not a C programmer I want on my team.

I disagree. Interfaces in C need to carefully document their expectations and do exactly that amount of checking, not more. Documentation should replace a strong type system, not runtime checks. Code filled with NULL checks and other defensive maneuvers is far less readable. You could argue for more defensive checking at a library boundary, and this is exactly what the article pushes for: push these checks up.

Security-critical code may be different, but in most cases an accidental NULL dereference is fine and will be caught by tests, sanitizers, or fuzzing.

> During the early part of this event, we were unable to update the Service Health Dashboard because the tool we use to post these updates itself uses Cognito, which was impacted by this event.

Poetry.

Then, to be fair:

> We have a back-up means of updating the Service Health Dashboard that has minimal service dependencies. While this worked as expected, we encountered several delays during the earlier part of the event in posting to the Service Health Dashboard with this tool, as it is a more manual and less familiar tool for our support operators. To ensure customers were getting timely updates, the support team used the Personal Health Dashboard to notify impacted customers if they were impacted by the service issues.

I'm curious if anyone here actually got one of these.

There's really no evidence that C++ has a higher performance ceiling. From a broad view, both are compiled with no runtime. More specifically, Rust and C/C++ trade the lead constantly in the language benchmarks game. In some cases, Rust can be faster because it makes stack allocating easier. In others, C++ can be faster because of specialization (which Rust doesn't have yet).