Are you sure? I'm not very active in that ecosystem, but if that was prevalent in the past, surely there's still tutorials and stuff out there that people would follow and create such projects even today?
More than that, it seems to me that the official python docs for packaging [still] talks about setup.py. Why would people not use that?
he l p
looks like a multi-threading or concurrency issue
each function has its own independent metal toggle switch
one steering wheel to steer left, and one to steer to the right
they want to push a lot of buttons on those controls
LOL
Even with a lot of buttons available, good videogame controls are simple and narrow. Natural combinations add depth without overcomplicating things.
OS stands for "Oh Shit!"
Python’s major pro is its simple, straightforward syntax, which excels at data handling. This has made it popular with novices of all shades […]
For first-timer coders, Python is easier to learn, understand, and adapt than many low-level programming languages […]
Is python being easy to learn actually true? I can see it being easier than low-level programming. But there's other alternatives like C# and Java that certainly seem much better and easier to me. Especially when you consider the ecosystem around only writing code.
Plus, the Python language is a steadfast feature in the desktop Linux software landscape. It’s preinstalled on most Linux distributions, boasts extensive library support, and can be used to fashion very cool (as well as very basic) Qt, GTK, and other toolkit UIs.
It's certainly available, and more readily available on Linux. The whole v2 v3 mess was lackluster. But I guess preinstalled is convenient, and more accessible than installable Java or whatever.
I've never seen JavaScript or Python popularity as evidence or correlating with actual qualities. More with a self-promoting usage. Python was being used in science, then in AI, then AI became popular. To me, it seems like a natural propagation consequence more than simplicity or features over other frameworks and languages.
eeew (/s)
I have a dislike for both of them. Well, for JavaScript mainly the server-side part. I'm fine with it on web scripting, where it's the only native one.
Notably for CPU only. And on other platforms they already did.
Broadcom would like to clarify that while using KVM for the CPU virtualization, they will continue to rely on all of the existing VMware virtual devices for graphics and other functionality. Also on both macOS and Windows they have migrated to the native CPU virtualization frameworks.
I found it hard to follow despite C# being my main driver.
Using ref, in the past, has been about modifiable variable references.
All these introductions, even when following C# changes across recent versions, were never something I actively used, apart from the occasional adding ref to structs so they can contain existing ref struct types. It never seems necessary.
Even without ref you use reference and struct types, where reference content can be modified elsewhere. And IDisposable for object lifetimes with cleanup.
Have you considered creating a ticket called "Can't ask questions without joining discord"?
Do you think it would have more answers if it were on GitHub discussions?
Release must be documented
It's not a must [unless you put it into a contract], it's a should or would be nice
Many, if not most, projects don't follow a good, obvious, transparent, documented release or change management.
I wish for it, too, but it's not the reality of projects. Most people don't seem to care about it as much as I do.
I agree blind acceptance/merging is problematic. But for some projects (small scope/size/personal-FOSS, trustworthy upstream) I see it as pragmatic rather than problematic.
The field is incredibly broad. Choose a field or employer or project that's not doing that an you're fine.