dukk @ dukk @programming.dev

Posts

6

Comments

260

Joined

2 yr. ago

Rearranging the keys? My password’s pretty much muscle memory, typed fast enough in not really worried about people watching me enter it. Call me lazy, but having to pick and hit every key? No thanks.

Lemmy’s mobile UI is nice. Voyager is just a PWA, and it’s both really smooth and stupidly nice. In my eyes, the spiritual successor of Apollo. I’m not leaving it.

What’s with the big and blue username?

From the README:

Feel free to take a look around. We are not yet taking patches as we still have a little bit of tidying up to do. When we do, there will be a contributor license agreement.

So yeah, looks like there will be a CLA.

I personally use them pretty often. They’re not natural to me, I spend a little bit thinking about them, but they’re still decently useful.

I’ll point to how many functional languages handle it. You create a type Maybe a, where a can be whatever type you wish. The maybe type can either be Just x or Nothing, where x is a value of type a (usually the result). You can’t access the x value through Maybe: if you want to get the value inside the Maybe, you’ll have to handle both a case where we have a value(Just x) and don’t(Nothing). Alternatively, you could just pass this value through, “assuming” you have a value throughout, and return the result in another Maybe, where you’ll either return the result through a Just or a Nothing. These are just some ways we can use Maybe types to completely replace nulls. The biggest benefit is that it forces you to handle the case where Maybe is Nothing: with null, it’s easy to forget. Even in languages like Zig, the Maybe type is present, just hiding under a different guise.

If this explanation didn’t really make sense, that’s fine, perhaps the Rust Book can explain it better. If you’re willing to get your hands dirty with a little bit of Rust, I find this guide to also be quite nice.

TLDR: The Maybe monad is a much better alternative to nulls.

I thought it was TS/JS too, but the way those braces are below the if statements makes it feel more like C#.

To be fair, Tesla Autopilot probably already did that.

You’d like the “features” of any car, it’s why they’re features. It’s the tradeoffs that actually matter.

And yeah, it looked cool at first, but that’s really just because of its uniqueness. From an actual design perspective, it just looks…stupid.

This is fucking cool. I can imagine the many times this could’ve helped me quite a bit, and honestly even if I didn’t find the function I needed I could still probably hack out a decent implementation in whatever language and actually contribute towards this. In 5-10 years, this could be really useful.

Yeah, it’s an Android, the Material You theme makes it easily recognizable.

Love it. Plot’s already more interesting than any recent movie I’ve watched.

This comment was made by the trombone gang.

It’s the other way around, too.

Not as true though.

Just read it: makes sense now. Thanks!

I mean, I got lemonade…

Why is it that BB and BB are being counted separately? I thought that order didn’t matter: you could have two girls, a boy and a girl (or vice versa, same thing), or a two boys. (And then by eliminating two girls you’d have a 50/50 chance).

Well not really, right? BG and GB are the same scenario here, so it’s a 50/50 chance.

Even if, say, the eldest child always opened the door, it’d still be a 50/50 chance, as the eldest child being a boy eliminates the possibility of GB, leaving either BG or BB.

I wouldn’t trust it do everything yet, but it sure as hell would be useful to retrieve information. Wish I could just ask it “Hey, is the door locked?” and get an answer.

Maybe it could suggest actions, but I wouldn’t want to have it do anything without manual human confirmation, it’s too unreliable.

Doesn’t work in nushell, function syntax is different.

Probably still possible, just written differently.