These kinds of struggles with JavaScript and TypeScript are part of why I moved to Rust. I value the sanity checks the compiler provides: warning when a Result is ignored and refusing to compile when a match on an enum is missing a branch.
Also, in Rust, Result is for recoverable failures, while panic! is generally reserved for bugs, broken internal assumptions, or cases where the program has reached a state that it believed should be impossible.
Oh interesting, TIL thank you
Can anyone with experience chime in if removing support in 6.8 makes sense compared to 7.0? The only thing I'm coming up with is that you don't have to worry about all the other breaking changes associated with a major release but it seems to go against semver doing this before a major release..
This always grinds my gears. When I was hosting custom Minecraft servers back in 2011 we had so many server side anti cheat measures in place. Prevented people from moving too fast. Randomized blocks until you exposed them so xray wouldn't work. Logblock to identify griefers and do immediate rollbacks.
I remember this one time we had a group get on and grief someone that didn't set up a claim yet and they thought they were so sneaky by distributing the loot amongst friends and chests. We just followed the stacks in the logs and restored everything then banned them. We actually had more people end up joining because how much auditing we could do, they probably felt like they could invest time into the server.
Now it's like just trust the clients for everything and "oh we can't ban them until the next ban wave because we don't want them to know how we caught them". It's lazy. Back in the pubg days I remember seeing someone get 75 kills in a matter of 3 minutes. They didn't get banned. They didn't even have line of sight. Ban waves still allow peoples experiences to be compromised.
Maybe they just prefer the workflow compared to gimp
My experience might not match others but honestly I would recommend avoiding this trap. It's just compromise and disappointment all the way up. Then you'll be blamed for anything that goes wrong despite only 15% of your plan being accepted by executives. If the company culture is different and fosters leadership instead of stifling it then maybe it could work. At the end of the day you're probably still going to be making someone else's dreams come true until you start your own company.
Valve contracted codeweavers when proton started back in 2016. I would say without Valve, Linux gaming wouldn't be where it is today. Proton is open source, so anyone can fork it and build on it. Pretending Valve didn’t meaningfully fund and push this effort is misleading. Your comments read less like "credit where it’s due" and more like "Steam bad, therefore Valve contributed nothing", which just isn’t an honest framing.
Quite the family member you got. At the very least hopefully you've gotten your family to shun them or something regardless of their "legal rights". Drives me nuts seeing "idea people" exploiting the actual effort and talent it takes to implement it.
Since she "closed shop" is she running around trying to sell the software you made or is it just rotting away because her ego won't let you try to make something of it?
Curious but were you paid for it? I'm no lawyer but I can't imagine that holding up unless she paid you for it. Even then, without an explicit contract, there's probably a lot of gray area this falls into because you could have just been offering a service that's utilizing something you made.
+1 for smartgit. I just use jet brains built in git guis now but whenever I'm doing some crazy rebasing I open up smartgit. I like how it also shows you the commands in the log so you can learn by doing.
You missed the part where they are SUPPOSED to meticulously review the "solution" themselves and have deep foundational understanding of what's going on to know if it's a good solution or not.
Ideas are a dime a dozen. It's not useful when the person lacks the ability to fully vet the solution before passing someone else to review. That just makes them middlemen. When instead the actual maintainer or reviewer could have done the same thing but have that foundational understanding.