key

It’s good the core language now has to have a reason before it deletes shit. Speaking of, when do they add full garbage collection and call it c+++?

I don’t see the humor. Maybe the punchline takes a slong time

Something being “old” is totally unrelated to whether it’s trendy. See: virtually every food and fashion trend.

I like yml. Clean to read, easy to use, supports comments.

This is the first I’ve even heard of “Concord”

Sounds like I’m not missing much

Never asked one. Answered my first one recently.

Plus, the license was only changed on a secondary branch. The default branch still has the MIT license. The text at the top isn’t “this is the license file you have open” it’s “the repo is licensed under this” so it’s correct behavior but bad UX. It would be most user-friendly to show repo license and then also say “this branch has an invalid license, beware shenanigans”

I think it’s in reference to this: https://news.microsoft.com/source/asia/features/taiwan-hospital-deploys-ai-copilots-to-lighten-workloads-for-doctors-nurses-and-pharmacists/

Looks like the benefit/headline comes from use of the entire software suite that provides access to a patient’s chart/medical history including checks for interactions/allergies. Most of that has nothing to do with AI but since it has a feature that generates a summary via a language model the whole thing is marketed as an AI Copilot.

Frankly AS did a lot of things well

Amazing how many replies to your comment completely miss the point

I’m missing something

That makes no sense. If you join b’ and b’’ into b then the external interface of b is the union of the external interfaces of b’ and b’'. The risk of conflicts between those two interfaces is minimal in the situation they described so no need for namespacing.

I expected the argument to be based on total effort to split then join the internal code compared to the context switching cost of splitting and then splitting again (with an appeal to agile vs waterfall). But this argument feels like they were either dealing with a language/stack with a broken module system that lacks an explicit separation of internal vs exposed or were just joining things strangely.

Expressing a general rule based solely on a specific situation is a disservice (irony intended).

There’s a bug! You can click buttons once after they disappear.

It takes like 5 minutes to beat…

It’s trigger warning for the self harm risk involved in reading angular.

Oh man, that would be a hell of an easter egg if it cleared your terminal and pretended to be a dos prompt

Seems kinda trash tbh. Like the concept I love, I would love a cross-language “by examples” learning resource and snippet repository beyond SO. But looking through there most of the function options are trivial problems. The ones that aren’t one or two lines mostly have broken code that passes very few tests. The weird Z naming of function and variable makes it totally unreadable. The “composition” option is barely comprehendable and beyond that I only see two language options so it can’t even serve as a “rosetta stone”.

I’d usually do the former because by build number I usually mean pipeline or job id in a build server. You could build 4.0.4 and then 3.4.18 and so 4.0.4 could be build number 1026 while 3.4.18 is 1027.

You can also just use a special number to keep your version number unique when doing dev builds so your version number comes through like 3.5.2-48 and some might call the 48 a build number, in which case that would make sense to reset with each version number.

I got one of those desks with a vertical pneumatic lift so I can stack the computers vertically in a rack and just raise/lower it so the right one is at eye height

MAAAN would be a much better acronym though