I’m a mathematician too. They’re probably speaking from an intuitive grasp of utility.

Yeah, but still - the elephant.

The Tarot of the Bohemians.

I think it’s fairly parochial, and sounds quite infantile to me. Growing up (uk) we just used clockwise to tighten.

“I love life on Earth… but I love capitalism more.”

That was my, admittedly bitter, point, yes. You do have to wonder what the hell weretcollectively playing at.

We live in a world of plenty where we still produce enough food that nobody need go hungry.

It does make me wonder about quantum suicide.

The Sixth Sense.

Thank-you.

And 51 feels prime. Someone sgould write a letter.

It’s “revelation,” singular. Like trivial pursuit.

Ed Balls

You’ve linked into it, but I was just going to point at the Git book: https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2

It’s an afternoon’s reading; it does an excellent job of giving you the right mental model - and a crib aheet of commands to navigate it.

That seems like a non sequiteur. Did you watch the video? Did you hear what the presenter was asking for? Technical feedback on the API semantics they were describing. A heads-up if breaking changes to those APIs were about to land, so they can update bindings. They were bending over backwards to be accommodating. None of this is the entitled behaviour you describe.

It’s what C is for, too.

The point is that there may be cases already where the type system that rust provides its guarantees off the back of is insufficiently expressive. (I say “may be” because there are ingenious qays to use what it does provide, although nonobvious and not necessarily without cost.) If you’re using unsafe then it’s just an uglier C. I don’t think anyone considers the current state of Rust’s type system to be the be-all and end-all of expressivity.

That’s an interesting notion (although it underestimates the effort, I think). Honestly, having machinery to write down contract semantics in a fashion amenable to automated proofs (meaning, does it type-check?) is massively promising; and I’m a dyed-in-the-wool C hacker. I would hope that the public exposure of this bad behaviour causes a few moments of self-reflection.

I suspect that attempting to chase a moving target of describing C apis with rust is just an avenue for burnout, unless there really is a mechanism for getting fixes back in the other direction, and professional respect flowing in both directions. That would be a massive shame, and an incredible missed opportunity.

What you describe would, indeed, be risible. Fortunately it’s merely histrionic twaddle.

There are some situations where I can see Rust’s type-ststem potentially being counterproductive. For instance, it may be valid to invert lock order in a chain of operations under some circumstances, and rust might prevent you from expressing that. I grew up with C (from the pre-ANSI days) and while lifetimes and ownership are things that good C devs care about, they are tacit - and the ability to play fast and loose when necessary is great.

The linux kernel is built on a foundation of these implicit semantics. Some of it is written down, some of it isn’t. I can see why asking “but what does this mean?” can lead to frustrating conversations and overly-qualified answers, but not everyone in that video was hostile to the prospect.

The thing here is that (even with things like the vfs interface), linux doesn’t have internal SPIs.

The friction here is that the rust devs want to write down the semantics in a formal fashion, and the C devs are used to a world where the semantics are implicit in the C code.

I thought the engagement in the video was the kind of useful feedback that was needed and asked for: “I’m not sure the semantics of this specific interface are precisely that,” which might have been out of place, but getting detail-focused feedback to an example is what you are going to have to expect from people who fit the role of VFS experts.

Ted was being an unconscionably rude fucker, but - diatribe aside - his process question is a reasonable one, although his solution “well you’re SOL” was poor, undiplomatic, and unhelpful.