> You literally used the word "comical" in the previous post. English is not my language, but if I search for a definition, I get: "comical: arousing or provoking laughter".
One can make an attempt at humour without the whole audience necessarily finding it funny. I was not confused by SubzeroCarnage's wording at all.
You call them out for lacking communication skills and being offensive, but if anything you're the one with lacking English comprehenshion, lashing out because of a misunderstanding on your part.
They are callable from plain Rust. See the crate `esp-idf-sys` [1]. I'm using ESP32-C3, Rust, and the IDF for a DIY RGB room lighting solution [2]. Convenient MQTT and OTA updates -- it's great! Espressif and the Rust community have done an amazing job.
But I'd also love to be able to do the project without ESP IDF, using `no_std` and smaller specific crates instead. The solution for using ESP IDF in Rust is fairly convenient, but it does require some extra steps and the disk usage is not insignificant. A pure Rust solution would be more elegant.
Seriously. The post should've just been the "Rust Isn’t Fun for Me" section. That's the reason, everything else is just rationalizing.
To be clear, I don't mean to disparage the author's decision. Programming can be an artistic endeavour, where personal enjoyment trumps most concerns. If programming C is what keeps you motivated, go ahead and use it! Just be aware that this may make your software risky to use and rejected in many real-world situations.
I can write on a piece of paper, right now, that I have supreme power over the state. That doesn't actually make it so.
Most of the powers the monarchs in Scandinavia supposedly have can't actually be enforced in reality, so they really don't have as much power as you seem to think.
On the opposite end, is North Korea a democracy just because it says so in their constitution?
Sounds like the Zeitgeist movement. Just some Americans re-inventing socialism yet again (more specifically the branch of socialism sometimes referred to as Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism), but not reading any of the existing theory, thus resulting in this square wheel scenario.
> > More broadly, the big news of the election seems a clear rejection of the far-left agenda.
> 100% agree with this conclusion.
Except the reason that Biden isn't doing as great as he could be is because he's too centrist. He isn't getting enough of the far-left vote because of their apathy towards his agenda, which does not reach far enough by far.
As an example, Florida did not vote for Biden. Not because he's too left, but because he's not left enough. The proof for this is that they also just voted to increase the minimum wage to $15. The democrats wanted a candidate with broader appeal than Bernie, but they only succeeded in alienating the social-conservatives even further.
Reminds me of a post on here in 2018, "It Takes Two Neurons to Ride a Bicycle (2004)" [1], where many of the commenters rightfully pointed out that instead of turning this into a machine learning problem, you could just implement a PID controller [2] to solve the problem. With control theory you can model a dynamic process like this more directly, and the theories have been around for a long time already.
In my uni, many professors used Emacs when demonstrating. For example, one course [0] used the Agda language [1] as a proof assistant. Afaik, the only good interactive Agda interface is the Emacs Agda mode [2]. Maybe you just live in a region of the world that happens to have a weak culture of using Emacs?
> Much of the failure (or poor performance) of the public school system for low-income children is also a fault of the breakdown of family discipline and emphasis on education in the lower/poor classes.
You're not going to have as much time available for disciplining and raising your kids properly when you have to spend most waking hours of the day working multiple jobs, just to afford putting food on the table. The "breakdown of family discipline", as you call it, is just another consequence of being poor.
Seriously, there's just no winning for low-income households in the US.
Depending on your definition of the term, OOP can imply parametric & ad hoc polymorphism. Sure. But that in no way implies that all languages with that kind of polymorphism are OOP. That's gotta be, like, the first logical fallacy one learns about...
By your logic:
1. Ducks have feathers
2. All birds have feathers
3. Therefore, all birds are ducks
In any case, Haskell didn't get its polymorphism from any OOP language, so the point is moot. ML was first to introduce parametric polymorphism in 1975 — Java/C#/etc with their "generics" came later. Even ad hoc polymorphism with type classes was proposed 7 whole years (1988) before Java was even released (1995). And sure, the paper mentions that OOP has to solve similar issues, but "solving the same problem" ≠ "being the same solution".
https://docs.rs/smol/latest/smol/fn.block_on.html