Yeah it's definitely a vast improvement on previous attempts (Poetry et al).
I dunno if it can be called solved until it's officially sanctioned and installed by default though, and I don't see that happening for a very long time.
FizzyOrange
joined 1 year ago
Kind of worthless video. Just speculates about how it works. They don't ever even show the app working!
These glasses aren't even AR so the idea that they can overlay details as shown in the mockups is impossible.
It was clearly a joke.
My advice is that you debug via tests. If you install Rust-analyzer (you probably already have) then any tests you add have a little "Run test" and "Debug test" button next to them that you can just click. It magically works without having to faff around with JSON files.
As for your current setup, as other said you have an issue in Cargo.toml which is unrelated to debugging, and the target binary is in target/debug, not in the workspace root.
One of the things I hate about merge-based Git workflows is git makes a default Merge 123234234 from user/dave/fsdf message which:
a) Is shit - it contains zero useful information (what's in the change??) and contains information you explicitly don't care about (the temporary branch name the author happened to use). a) Makes people think they are supposed to use that message.
It would probably be better if the default message was blank. But also squash & rebase is generally better anyway and it avoids this problem entirely.
Wow, they (apparently) finally made the REPL not suck! I always thought it was weird how shit it was given that it's one of the big reasons Python has become as popular as it is.
Maybe in another 20 years they can make the package tooling not suck too.
I wish they'd picked a less awful name.
I dunno it looks well designed but I dunno why I would use it instead of Rust.
Isn't Elixer dynamically typed?
Its definitely best to try and avoid raw pointers, but even if you try really hard I found it's not really possible to get a Rust-like experience with no UB.
Even something as simple as std::optional - you can easily forget to check it has a value and then boom, UB.
The C++ committee still have the attitude that programmers are capable of avoiding UB if they simply document it, and therefore they can omit all sanity checks. std::optional could easily have thrown an exception rather than UB but they think programmers are perfect and will never make that mistake. There are similar wild decisions with more recent features like coroutines.
They somehow haven't even learnt the very old lesson "safe by default".
If I wanted memory unsafety I think I would consider Zig instead of C++ at this point.
Ah I see, though they don't seem to be for sale so I don't think this guy actually has access to them.