This is about the one thing where SQL is a badly designed language, and you should use a frontend that forces you to write your queries in the order (table, filter, columns) for consistency.
UPDATE table_name WHERE y = $3 SET w = $1, x = $2, z = $4 RETURNING *
FROM table_name SELECT w, x, y, z
Obviously the actual programs are trivial. The question is, how are the tools supposed to be used?
So you say to use deno? Out of all the tutorials I found telling me what tools to use, that wasn’t one of them (I really thought this “typescript” package would be the thing I was supposed to use; I just checked again on a hot cache and it was 1.7 seconds real time, 4.5 seconds cpu time, only 2.9 seconds if I pin everything to a single core). And I swear I just saw this week, people saying “seriously, don’t use deno”. It also doesn’t seem to address the browser use case at all though.
In other languages I know, I know how to write 4 files (the fib library and 3 frontends), and compile and/or execute them separately. I know how to shove all of them into a single blob with multiple entry points selected dynamically. I know how to shove just one frontend with the library into a single executable. I know how to separately compile the library and each frontend, producing 4 separate artifacts, with the library being dynamically replaceable. I even know how to leave them as loose files and execute them directly (barring things like C). I can choose between these things all in a single codebase, since there are no hard-coded project filenames.
I learned these things because I knew I wanted the ability from previous languages I’d learned, and very quickly found how the new language’s tools supported that.
I don’t have that for TS (JS itself seems to be fine, since I have yet to actually need all the polyfill spam). And every time I try to find an answer, I get something that contradicts everything I read before.
That is why I say that TS is a hopelessly immature ecosystem.
I’m not concerned about the Microsoft’s involvement. TypeScript shows an immature tooling ecosystem even on its own merits.
I posted some of my concerns earlier, along with a basic problem challenge (that I can easily do in many other languages) that nobody managed to solve: https://programming.dev/comment/2734178
It’s because unicode was really broken, and a lot of the obvious breakage was when people mixed the two. So they did fix some of the obvious breakage, but they left a lot of the subtle breakage (in addition to breaking a lot of existing correct code, and introducing a completely nonsensical bytes class).
Python 2 had one mostly-working str class, and a mostly-broken unicode class.
Python 3, for some reason, got rid of the one that mostly worked, leaving no replacement. The closest you can get is to spam surrogateescape everywhere, which is both incorrect and has significant performance cost - and that still leaves several APIs unavailable.
Simply removing str indexing would’ve fixed the common user mistake if that was really desirable. It’s not like unicode indexing is meaningful either, and now large amounts of historical data can no longer be accessed from Python.
The problem with mailing lists is that no mailing list provider ever supports “subscribe to this message tree”.
As a result, either you get constant spam, or you don’t get half the replies.
The problem is that there’s a severe hole in the ABCs: there is no distinction between “container whose elements are mutable” and “container whose elements and size are mutable”.
(related, there’s no distinction for supporting slice operations or not, e.g. deque)
I guess I forgot to mention the other implicit difference in concerns:
When you are a game, you can reasonably assume: I have the user’s full focus and can take all the computing resources of their device, barring a few background apps.
When you are an application, the user will almost always have several other applications running to a meaningful degree, and those eat into available resources (often in a difficult-to-measure way). Unfortunately this rarely gets tested.
I’m not saying you can’t write an app using a game toolkit or vice versa, but you have to be aware of the differences and figure out how to configure it correctly for your use case.
(though actually - some purely-turn-based games that do nothing until user enters input do just fine on app toolkits. But the existence of such games means that game toolkits almost always support some way of supporting the app paradigm. By contrast, app toolkits often lack ready support for continuous game paradigms … unless you use APIs designed for video playback, often involving creating a separate child “window”. Actual video playback is really hard; even the makers of dedicated video-playing programs mess it up.)
The problem with XCB is that it’s designed to be efficient, not easy. If you’re avoiding toolkits for some reason, “so what if I block the world” may be a reasonable tradeoff.
There’s tends to be one major difference between games and non-game applications, so toolkits designed for one are often quite unsuitable for the other.
A game generally performs logic to paint the whole window, every frame, with at most some framerate-limiting in “paused” states. This burns power but is steady and often tries hard to reduce latency.
An application generally tries to paint as little of the window as possible, as rarely as possible. Reducing video bandwidth means using a lot less power, but can involve variable loads so sometimes latency gets pushed down to “it would be nice”.
Notably, the implications of the 4-way choice between {tearing, vsync, double-buffer, triple-buffer} looks very different between those two - and so does the question of “how do we use the GPU”?
1, Don’t target X11 specifically these days. Yes a lot of people still use it or at least support it in a backward-compatible manner, but Wayland is only increasing.
2, Don’t fear the use of libraries. SDL and GTK, being C-based, should both be feasible from assembly; at most you might want to build a C program that dumps constants (if -dM doesn’t suffice) and struct offsets (if you don’t want to hard-code them).
As a practical matter it is likely to break somebody’s unit tests.
If there’s an alternative approach that you want people to use in their unit tests, go ahead and break it. If there isn’t, but you’re only doing such breakage rarely and it’s reasonable for their unit tests to be updated in a way that works with both versions of your library, do it cautiously. Otherwise, only do it if you own the universe and you hate future debuggers.
It’s solving (and facing) some very interesting problems at a technical level …
but I can’t get over the dumb decision for how IO is done. It’s $CURRENTYEAR; we have global constructors even if your platform really needs them (hint: it probably doesn’t).
Stop reinventing the wheel.
Major translation systems like gettext (especially the GNU variant) have decades of tooling built up for “merging” and all sorts of other operations.
Even if you don’t want to use their binary format at runtime, their tooling is still worth it.
and I already explained that Union is a thing.
That still doesn’t explain why duck typing is ever a thing beyond “I’m too lazy to write extends BaseClass”. There’s simply no reason to want it.
Write-up is highly Windows-centric (though not irrelevant elsewhere).
One thing that is regretfully ignored in discussions of async, tasks, green threads, etc. is that there is no support/consideration for native (reliable/efficient) thread-local variables. If you’re lucky you’ll get a warning about “don’t use them”.
Then - ignoring dunders that have weird rules - what, pray tell, is the point of protocols, other than backward compatibility with historical fragile ducks (at the cost of future backwards compatibility)? Why are people afraid of using real base classes?
The fact that it is possible to subclass a Protocol is useless since you can’t enforce subclassing, which is necessary for maintainable software refactoring, unless it’s a purely internal interface (in which case the Union approach is probably still better).
That PEP link includes broken examples so it’s really not worth much as a reference.
(for that matter, the Sequence interface is also broken in Python, in case you need another historical example of why protocols are a bad idea).
Aside: Note that requests is sloppy there, it should use either raise ... from e to make the cause explicit, or from None to hide it. Default propagation is supposed to imply that the second exception was unexpected.
Related, note that division is much slower than multiplication.
Instead of:
see if you can refactor it to:
where that inverse can then be hoisted out of loops.