Sure, assuming this is your own software. The context of the article is on working towards a general approach to relocatable nix binaries so I don't think that's going to scale across nixpkgs.
I wonder if something equivalent exists for loading other kinds of assets. Take files that would normally live under `/usr/share`. References to these files are typically hardcoded with an absolute path as well. It's usually possible to relocate them at build time by specifying a different absolute prefix, but making them relative the conventional way would likely require patching.
Also avoid using ProtonMail Bridge if you value your emails. It's been silently corrupting/deleting your emails for years now. And Proton hasn't done a single thing to warn users about it. Instead they've been working on a complete rewrite which is far from completion. Meanwhile people are still discovering that their emails are disappearing.
> It makes no sense for them to add the touchbar to the base model 13" MBPs only to remove them from the higher end versions.
Well keep in mind that the first generation Arm MacBooks are basically the same old Intel laptops with their guts replaced. The next generation is probably going to be a completely new design.
Most likely the issue was resolved by the reboot, not by uninstalling Chrome. From my experience Mac OS tends to slow down after a few days. Animations and scrolling gets choppy and there's nothing I can do to fix it, short of rebooting.
"Goto is all you need, no ifs or loops or dynamic dispatch, just jumps. I have no problem with this, I enjoy it like this, we don't need an improvement. There I said it, any downvotes will be worth it, because I get to voice my opinion. In the end I will still be happily using my assembler and enjoy my life."
I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. Your comment reminds me of an anecdote I heard from the early times of structured programming. When structured programming was just gaining its feet, there was a certain class of programmers who just could not understand why people would want to write structured code. You can do everything in assembly they said, you have much more control over performance, etc. They looked down on structured programming as not "real programming".
There's a lot of benefits to adding some structure to text. I don't think that Nushell's approach is the best one, but to say that there are no problems and we shouldn't look to improve things is just backwards. We should always look to improve our tools and our craft, otherwise we would still be stuck writing assembly.
While comptime looks extremely powerful, I'm really not a fan of how it's used for unconstrained generics. This is the same problem I have with C++ templates where an incorrect use of a generic function would result in an explosion of bizarre undescriptive template errors. Sure you can write these type asserts yourself, but it's time consuming and how many developers will actually do it and get it right? I don't know, maybe it's really not that big of a deal, but I much prefer how Rust does this using traits as type constraints (although at some cost of complexity, e.g. Eq, PartialEq, Ord, PartialOrd). Not to mention that by using constraints on the type system level, you actually get useful type signature documentation on what you can or cannot pass to a function.
What do you mean exactly? I mean yeah, it's a bit different with FastCGI when you have a pool of persistent processes. But you still basically boot up your whole application every time a request comes in. Opcode caching helps with loading code, but not execution. And you're still working with OS processes for concurrency, which is not ideal.
There are plenty of competitors in this space, they just don't use the CGI model of spawning a new _OS_ process for every request. You have Erlang/Elixir that have their own lightweight processes that don't share memory and have independent GC. And you can build similar systems on Java/Go. The difference is that in those language you have a choice. There are certain types of applications that you just can't reasonably make in PHP.
I feel like this is especially problematic when using NPM for your frontend. Now you have to run all your code through deduplication and slow down your build times or end up with huge assets. I wonder if it's really worth the trouble.
It doesn't force you, but you lose all of it's ORM features. Sequel::Dataset is basically just a query builder so ROM would probably be a better choice then yeah.
Something to consider for people interested in Sequel. Sequel is great and all, but it still follows the Active Record pattern (Sequel::Model), not Data Mapper. Also expect to run into some problems with gems that interact with ActiveModel (Devise, CarrierWave, etc.). It's all solvable of course but it might require some hacking. Most popular gems have sequel versions or ship with sequel support, but it's not as well tested and maintained, we had to contribute several patches. Also, if you plan on using Sequel with Rails, don't use any of it's plugins that make it behave closer to ActiveRecord. Stuff like nested_attributes, delay_add_association, association_proxies, instance_hooks. They seem really nice at first, but I guarantee they will cause all sorts of unpredictable problems down the road. I would recommend looking into something like Reform which decouples form logic from your models because working with complex forms is going to be harder without all of the AR magic.
I'd love to try it out. I've been struggling with Docker ever since I moved from Linux to Mac. Especially with setting up dev environments for our projects. VirtualBox shared folders just don't cut it.
It's funny when you contrast it to web applications. It just shows the layers and layers of bad, inefficient abstractions we've built over the years. For example, re-drawing when resizing the Slack chat window can take up to a second. In that time I could have rendered the Deus Ex scene at 1080p at the highest settings 60+ times.
What they said is that they want to sell elementary OS. But going completely in that direction is pointless because someone will just fork the project and offer it for free. So what they did is make you enter $0, so when you do get it for free, it feels like you've cheated the system.
If that's your argument, then why do we allow thousands of companies to base their proprietary web applications on the FOSS stack? How many of these companies would even exist today without Linux or Ruby or MySQL/Postgres? How much do companies contribute back to these projects? Why is it so bad if elementary OS is based on Debian, but it's completely fine when some startup runs on Debian servers?