Well… it is true that it doen’t have all these crates like Url included in the rust standard library, and hence it is not official. On the other hand Url was created by Mozilla to be used in Firefox, hence it is a quite competent crate that is very well maintained. And my guess is that the http crate may have the same kind of origins… but I’m not entirely sure about that.

And even Java that includes quite a lot, still didn’t get a good Http library until very recent, until then you had to rely on some obscure library created by the unknown organization Apache… so…

As a developer you always have to think about what libraries you use, and if you trust them… that goes for pretty much any language.

Well, Perl is great for small scripts that works on large texts, that you process with regex. I still use Perl from time to time, for that kind of scripts. Also commandline, instead of awk/sed…

I learend it in the 90s, and was working on a large Perl codebase 2005 and a couple of years forward. And 20 years, it still started to feel dated, and 15 years ago it was just so out dated it hurt. So, starting to learn Perl 20 years ago would not have been great :) However, the things making Perl horrible, is pretty much threre in Python also with the addition of significant whitespace… so technically, going from Python to Perl might actually be a step in the right direction… Now, if you excuse me, I will hide behinde this huge rock for a while to let the incoming projectiles settle.

I used to use IntelliJ Rust as my primary rust IDE, but when they switched to Rust Rover I stopped using it. Not sure why actually, possibly since I used Java with IntelliJ it was already my go to IDE, so using it for Rust was natural. I also guess, that I had nvim with rust-analyzer working, so that was available at my finger tips already. So, I might have switched over anyway… who knows.

Anyway, it is good to see more options available, and I hope it is getting so good that it is worth the money.

No, it is not based on Gnome. It is a full DE environment written in rust.

The problem with assassin the Russian economy, is to do it faster then it commit suicide.

Not the latest, but one of the biggest improvements was the Ultimate Hacking Keyboard. Now I have programmed the keyboard to have VIM navigation at the keyboard level. The latest was switching to neovim and setting it up properly.

Of course cars would loose if you tried to use it to travel across the Atlantic…

But per mile measurement for flying implies that every mile of a flight is equally dangerous, but the truth I’d that it is most dangerous to start or land, which is a per trip occurrence. The take off and landing is equally dangerous whether you travel a long or short distance in between.

And the question is am I going to die on this trip? And there the real statistics are pretty clear, cars are safer.

Well, what I want to know is “Am I going to die today?”. The distance traveled is irrelevant to answer that question. The only reason to add that to the equation is to make air travel look safer.

Per trip is more in line with how people think about danger. Like, am I going to die on this trip?

Just check the stats https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#Transport_comparisons

I think you underestimate the number of trips per car per day. Most people will take more trips by car per month than they will fly for their lifetime. In Sweden , a country of 10 million, we have about 150 people killed per year from car accidents, yet most adults travel by car daily. That is millions of trips per day, and only half a death.

The fact that airplane travel is safer than cars is a myth invented to promote airplane travel. Well, it is not fully a myth, but to get to that result they measure per mile, and that greatly favor airplane travel. If you instead measure how likely you are to die on your next trip, then the dangers of airplane travel will significantly exceed car travel and other means of transportation.

One breaking change, that they doesn’t list as breaking (I guess since I assume the old was always broken) is: Dynamic registration of LSP capabilities. An implication of this change is that checking a client’s server_capabilities is no longer a sufficient indicator to see if a server supports a feature. Instead use client.supports_method(<method>). It considers both the dynamic capabilities and static server_capabilities.

So if you had code like

if client.server_capabilities.inlayHintProvider then
...
end

you now should use

if client.supports_method("inlayHintProvider") then
...
end

So, not really a breaking change I guess, but something you should change any way.

You are confusing Google and Internet… they are very different things.

Had to test with Kagi also, leads with official documentation, after that tutorials and unofficial things. Nothing obviously irrelevant. The only thing with the Kagi results, was that there were a few very simmilar official documentation links (for different postgresql versions) at top. But, still good search results. Not sure why anyone is still using google, when there are quite a few better alternatives availale

You don’t have to understand everything, it is ok. And joining a language community for a language you hate just to rant about it, shows that you should try to focus on letting things go. It feels a bit obsessive.

If you actually like to have a conversation about the language, I suggest you be a bit more specific and we will try to answer to the best of our ability.

Have a nice day, and don’t forget to breathe.