No - in Italy you eat pizza with a knife and fork.

Damn! If only someone could’ve predicted that Meta would eventually do something stupid like this! If only we had defederated from them from the start /s

Try writing “!” followed by a community name, see if it autocompletes. That’s how it works in lemmy-ui.

You’re welcome! :)

Your link goes to lemmy.world, which only works for users on lemmy.world. For everyone else who doesn’t use lemmy.world, you just get to lemmy.world where you are not logged in. So you need that kind of link to go to the community while still staying on your own instance.

It’s like if I linked to the Feddit.dk community like this instead of like this: !fedditdk@feddit.dk

deleted by creator

For the lazy:

!internetisbeautiful@lemm.ee

!creepywikipedia@lemmy.world

!til@lemmy.world

!trendingcommunities@feddit.nl

!superbowl@lemmy.world for the lazy

The line is at least very blurred with moderation. One person’s moderation is another person’s censorship.

The borrow checker

This is indeed pretty unique.

the way it handles exceptions and nulls

This is really just the fact that Rust has sum types - but those kinds of types have been used in many functional languages (Haskell for example) for a long time.

the way it handles stack/heap

This is just the same as C and C++ and any other low-level language that requires you to distinguish between the stack and heap.

composition pattern instead of oop

I mean if you’re only looking at OOP languages then this will be new, but functional languages have done this for a long time.

So yea, I think a big part of what makes Rust great is that it has managed to take these really, really good ideas from functional programming languages and made them work in a language that is not entirely functional. This leads to a perfect blend/best of both worlds with regards to OOP and functional programming :)

Honestly I don’t trust these old, slow standards organizations to do well at designing programming languages.

Rust has strong backwards compatibility guarantees so it definitely should.

If there is anything I’ve learned in my 10+ years as an engineer, it’s that there are no good or bad languages, just pros and cons of each in different applications.

I dunno if I agree really - the more languages I’ve learned, the more I see an evolution from less sophisticated, less usable languages to more sophisticated, more usable, modern and just generally better languages.

C and C++ are old, and you can tell. There’s so much complexity and legacy in those languages that it’s crazy. But it’s not just legacy - it’s also bad design choices. There’s a lot of really bad APIs and bad usability and footguns everywhere. You see the same thing in languages like JavaScript (whose design journey has been fraught with peril). Even Java has some bad stuff I would say, mostly from the overzealous insistence on OOP.

However, if you look at some modern languages that were more deliberately designed, you really start to see how they are just intrinsically better. Python, while still being a dynamically typed scripting language which I would never use for large systems, is still leagues better than JavaScript in terms of design and usability I would say. Haskell was born from research and you can really tell - the language just makes sense in a very scientific way - although that does mean ease of use and developer experience has not always been the priority.

Rust was developed for a very particular purpose, basically to provide the same speed as C++ but without any undefined behavior. From that design principle, a lot of good has resulted and Rust is basically an objectively better language than C++. The only thing still keeping C++ in the game is the historical reasons, just due to the sheer amount of code that exists out there in C++. C++ has more support in all kinds of places, but that’s just due to history and Rust will likely gain ground soon enough. For instance, C++ still rules for game development, but this could change within the next 5 or 10 years.

It’s not that surprising when you think about - languages like Python, Haskell and Rust was built on the giant pile of experience the whole industry has amassed from using previous languages. It also helps that we just have more computing power today to make languages like Rust feasible. Rust compile times probably wouldn’t have been realistic 30 years ago.

Which foreign concepts do Rust use? The borrow checker/ownership is new but that’s really the only thing that doesn’t already exist in some other language.

I write down the best price I’ve seen, so it’s not necessarily a common price. But I feel like the lowest price something has been sold for recently is a good baseline to compare sales against.

The good price is 60 DKK per kg, though that price is rare. 80 is more realistic and common.

I don’t really run analysis on the numbers. I just use them when I’m shopping to see if a price is good or not.

I have noticed that at least here in Denmark, it never makes sense to buy butter if it’s not on sale, and some sales are still priced badly.

I keep track of prices in cost per kg (or liter) so I am not fooled by shrinkflation and so that I know when a good sale is, without having to remember all prices. Basically just have a giant spreadsheet with the numbers.

The fediverse is not really about avoiding censorship as it is about providing choice. That means the choice to listen to who you want to listen to (i.e. what servers to (de)federate from/to), the choice to post whatever you want (but you might get banned from your own instance or any other instance, that’s their prerogative), the choice of administrators and moderators (i.e. which instance you sign up to and what communities you participate in).

All of that stuff doesn’t really have to do with censorship directly, but it has implications for censorship. The fediverse is not built primarily to avoid censorship though, and in some cases it is made to make “censorship” (moderation) easier, rather than harder.

It’s funny how it used to be expensive. In Danish we have a saying to say someone is poor if “they can’t even afford salt for their egg”, as if an egg is cheaper than salt. Because it actually used to be that way.