Haskell is typed and has a repl.

I find the Quest 3 to be about the same as the index comfort wise, maybe a little better.

It would be weird if they offered steam link for Quest but not for their own hardware. Stranger things have happened though.

They also might go with a compute puck. That would allow them to offer a cheaper option which streams from your PC and a more expensive one that works by itself.

Did they just take Gabe follower’s tweet and pad it out into an article? I don’t see any actual reporting here.

Pretty sure they are close to final. It’s disappointing, as they look like a big step down from the Index controllers, but it seems like seamlessly emulating a gamepad is important to them.

This looks really fun.

I’ve got a galago pro that’s a little over five years old now, and I’m still pretty happy with it.

Doesn’t Kobo use Adobe DRM? I don’t see how that’s much better than Kindle.

I have a bunch of books from both stores, and Google too. The downloading and DRM removal process was about the same for all of them.

I’m not sure. I remember seeing an example in the docs, but I can’t find it now. Actually the docs in general are a lot less opinionated than I remember them.

One thing that I did find is that the ion shell document mentions that it isn’t a posix compliant shell because they would have had to leave out a bunch of features.

I wonder if someone’s working on this from the other end. Like, instead of porting mrust from gcc to tinycc, port rust 1.79 from 1.78 to 1.1.

This is true, but the differences go even further than that. Redox is intentionally non-posix-compliant. This means that userspace programs written for posix operating systems may or may not need patching to even compile.

Part of the philosophy of Redox is to follow the beaten path mostly, but not be afraid of exploring better ideas when appropriate.

I blame C++. When these kernel hackers hear about how they should switch to this shiny new language that’s going to make their code so much cleanser and more manageable, I don’t blame them for thinking it’s all bullshit. It was last time.

I finally watched the talk today and that wasn’t what I thought he meant. What I thought he was getting at was that the rust parts of the kernel interact with lots of other modules written by people who don’t know rust. When those C modules change their semantics in ways that break the rust code, they can’t go fix it because they don’t know rust. In fact, whenever they make a change, they don’t even know if they broke some rust module, because they don’t understand the rust code well enough. And this is something that everyone is going to have to live with for the foreseeable future, because you can’t force all those other kernel hackers to learn rust.

I had been wanting Wanda to go full-on supervillain ever since infinity war. I couldn’t believe they actually did it.

I loved Ms Marvel in spite of itself. The story they were telling, with the magic bangles and the clan destine and all that, was pretty boring and barely made sense. All the characters were great though, and it was worth suffering through the plot to spend some time with them.

It’s also worth noting that before bevy, there was a rust game engine called Amethyst, which was planning on using a scripting language for gameplay code. Not having to use a scripting language, but getting to use rust instead, was one of the big selling points of Bevy overr Amethyst.

The Koka language has a stated goal to be as simple as possible. The language definition even has something like scheme’s “feature on top of feature” verbiage. However it’s a very different language than you’re thinking of.

Haskell is simple in some ways and complicated in others.

It doesn’t have optional or named parameters. There are no objects or methods. No constructors. It doesn’t distinguish syntactically between procedures and functions. There are no for loops or while loops. && and || aren’t treated specially. It doesn’t even have functions with more than one argument. Every function takes one argument and returns one result.

I remember getting into political arguments that went nowhere at the time but resulted in me changing my mind years later. The people I argued with never knew about my change of heart. As far as they knew I was one of those people who get more entrenched in their beliefs.

What I’m getting at is that your arguments can hit home without looking like it. What you’re seeing as getting defensive could just be the early stages for them changing their minds.

This can be especially true if someone’s political beliefs are part of their identity. You don’t make those kind of changes all at once.

So I’d say just argue in good faith, don’t try to score points, provide food for thought if you can, and hope for the other person to eventually find their way to the truth.