sotolf

Yeah, I really enjoyed the AoC sub on reddit, and this year is going to be kind of sad without it, so that would be really nice :)

Now it works wonderfully :D

Yeah, I was able to see it in firefox, but then I can't register for it ;)

Hmm doesn't seem like I can get to the preregister page in the austrian google play store @[email protected]

I've been using tree style tabs, a plugin that makes a bar on the left with all the tabs, and then using the config files to only have a single bar on top, then I bound the sidebar with the tabs to F1 so that I can easily hide and show it, and it's really nice. I also use vimium which has a nice fuzzy search of my tabs as well, and I've been really liking that setup :)

maybe, at least it's something to consider :) Now nothing wrong with liking the language if you do though :) just talking about my misgivings with it.

So they are not excrypting it, but do we agree that with signatures the author uses their private key + the clear message to generate "something"?

Yeah sure, and I think the person you are arguing with is saying as much as well, it's just that this is not encrypting it, when you encrypt something you obfuscate it in a way that is possible to deobfuscate, think the caesar cipher as a simple encryption, a hash/signature on the other hand is something that is generated from the clear text using your private key, which is not possible to decrypt, think very simplified that the person would just put the amount of each letter of the alphabet used in in the text, then add the length of the thread, and then multiplied by your private key. This way it's proven that the holder of the private key is the person writing the text, and that the text hasn't changed since the signature was generated.

... so then anyone can use the author's public key to check that "something" against the clear mesage to confirm the author's identity?

They can confirm that the person holding the private key (not identity, just that they have the key) and also that nobody changed it since they signed it (like the person adminning the forum or a moderator or something)

If that's the case, then my error is that the operation to generate the signature is not an encryption. So, may I ask... what is it? A special type of hash?

It's basically a hashing function yeah.

Look at the words you used, encryption is not the same as a signature, with a signature you can prove that a person with access to the private key wrote the message.

What you're talking about in your message is encryption, and you have it the wrong way around, messages gets encrypted with the public key, and can only be read with the private key.

I was excited by rust, back when it used sigils instead of box and other keywords, it was an exciting language, I had some fun with it, but it wasn't ready yet, so I went having fun with some of the languages in its family (ocaml, F#) And when I went back to rust some years ago to write a little tool for myself (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-rust) to try it out, and it was really cumbersome, and ended up rather slow. I really don't like the rust syntax, and yes, that is kind of shallow, but there are so many bad choices, like a ; not being there rather than a return, it just doesn't work for me. Error handling is decent, just that it's syntactically cumbersome unless you use a package like anyerror, there are packages, so many packages, and what you wanted to make that is just a small tool now has 2 Gb + of build artifacts. I later found out about nim, and rewrote the tool in it, and got a more stable faster tool in a 3rd less code (https://codeberg.org/sotolf/tapet-nim) And the way to work in nim just fits me so much better.

The thing about the rust pushing people (They are funnily enough mostly people that haven't really used it for much yet, but went into the hype) is not that they are exited about a language, sure I can get that, it's the way they are pushing it, they talk down about other languages, demand people rewriting things in a language they are exited about, I don't like the slow compilation and the huge stuff. It's just not me. Don't get me wrong I know it's a good language, just too low level for what I (and most people really) need and it getting pushed for places where it's not really suited, I don't really think it's a good thing. There is also this push for cleverness in their libraries and code, and cleverness in code is always a red flag to me. So it's not you rust, it's me.

I've been using it for 2 years or so, mostly for hobby programming, and I really love it, it's been great for the kinds of things that I do at least :) Feels great and logical to write, and it'more or less works the same way my mind does, the type system is really good think something like Ada, and it can be both a pretty low level, and high level langauge. YMMV, but I really like it personally.

Aww, the hype got to ya... yeah, seeing it again and again, at least don't do like everyone else who are starting to shill for the language without even having tried it. I'm just tired of rust activism, so tired.

For me it depends on the size, for small stuff like 1000-2000 lines of code that mainly I just work on alone, something like python is okay, if it is something longer, I miss types a lot.

The thing is nim is more than just a typed python, it just works really well, I've had a lot of fun with it the two or so years that I've used it.

But then again, I have a lot of fun testing out different languages, and don't care about marketability, since I'm just programming as a hobby, and not as my profession, right now I'm playing around with picolisp, and it's pretty fun :)