porise

Sorry for not answering your question, but asking how to not let something do your work for you not be so exhausting is like listening to a billionaire complain that they have to instruct their maids and chefs too often.

Yeah I wouldn't like this in a code review. Add one more line of code so I don't have to investigate foo().

That's my fundamental gripe with C++

int i = 0;

function_0(i,...);

...

function_9(i,...);

which one changes i? It's not obvious in a code review due to default mutable references.

Reading this makes me wonder if Easter eggs are ever appropriate for something as ubiquitous as man.

And yet, none of them work with std::regex etc.

I don't care until they stop pretending Unicode doesn't exist.

It's not as bad as JIRA, although JIRA is marginally more useful than LinkedIn.

I'm still waiting for C++ to support Unicode properly.

Rusts tradeoff is awful. People organize struct members in the logical ways in which they will be accessed. Rust just decides to do things different so they can say they do things different and "better" than the old C. The featured article is an extreme case but other normal cases would have the same issue. Packing structs should be the exception.

Why is rust allowed to reorder fields? If I know that fields are going to be generally accessed together, this prevents me from ordering them so they fit in cache lines.

I heard they changed it to 5Rs.

Refuse, reduce, reuse, recyle, rot.

Nope. If someone did that it should be reported if it's against the rules here.

I've had two accounts. I changed because I don't like the history (maybe one other person has the same opinion I did?). Anyways it's pretty obvious why this is an issue. Microsoft has a historical issue with being brutal to competition. There is no oversight as to what they do with the private data on GitHub. It's absolutely an antitrust issue. Do you need more reasoning?

Can they use Github to their advantage to maintain a monopoly if they are nefarious? Think about it.

Companies used to be forced to sell parts of their business when antitrust was involved. The issue isn't the downtime, they should never have been allowed to own this in the first place.

There was just a recent case with Google to decide if they would have to sell Chrome. Of course the Judge ruled no. Nowadays you can have a monopoly in 20 adjacent industries and the courts will say it's fine.

What antitrust issue does my open source software have?