It's loading untrusted python different from loading untrusted dll/so? Unless your use some dedicated sandbox, I think they're equally insecure. I guess a bigger problem with native plugins is that they're not (usually) platform independent.
I don't understand the question about empty values. A row with there empty values is just:
,,
And yeah, dealing with separators is annoying, but pretty much every reader supports quoted values and escapes (not every writer cares up add them, though).
In practice I use csv to process large amount of tabular data (like logs, events, etc) where I care about greppability and performance more than about potential for 0.001% of corrupted data. YMMV of course, if getting it 100% right is important use something else (JSON is not without sins too, consider that JSON numbers are often parsed as floats).
Also, in general, people are quick to insult others online. Somehow it's easier to degrade someone online than I'm person, and there's less incentive to look for the common ground.
I think you're confused about the difference between [x]*4 and [x for _ in range (4)]. It's not, at any point, a difference between something being a value or reference.
The first code is equivalent to:
list_multiply([x], 4)
(the function is actually called list.__mul__, but that's an unimportant detail). The latter is a syntax sugar for:
out = []
for _ in range(4):
out.append(x)
(actually a bit more complex, but close enough).
When you understand it, the behavior is obvious in both cases.
>That's the complaint, that [[]]*4 is not shorthand for list comprehensions and that it's something entirely different.
Well, of course. It's a shorthand for duplicating the list elements four times. In this case, the list contains a single reference to an empty list, do the result contains four references to an empty list.
It's syntax sugar. I use it all the time, but of course it could always be respected by, i don't know, a for loop. It also makes writing duck typed code easier, as X3 will work for strings, bytes and lists.
Overall it's a very useful feature and I don't think it's that surprising. It's pretty obvious [x]4 will reuse the same reference. Just like manually adding "x" four times will.
I like how it looks, and I appreciate the effort that went into it, but other than using it to export a table in just a right format that you will then embed into your assembler directly, I'm not sure how to use it.
And I use opcode references [1] very often (sometimes daily, depending on the project). I even wrote my own disassemblers. But I mostly use opcode references for manual cross checking, so maybe I'm not a target of this project?
Musicians put their music on Spotify out of their own will. If they don't like it they can withdraw. Unless they sold the rights to a music label, but that's also their decision.
Can you explain your idea? Your algorithm is correct by definition, but doing this naively would be very slow (even for 32bit number). At this point it would be much faster to just binsearch it.
The common joke/fact in the nix community is the nix "triad": nix the language, nix the operating system, and nix the package manager. Sometimes it gets confusing, but usually context is enough.
Agreed. I've tried to write a json-nix converter (because I wanted to try configuring my system in jsonnet) and it's absolutely not easy, or obvious how to do this.
As a NixOs lover and user, nix-the-language is my least loved feature of the ecosystem. But at a user is not a big problem because I only write configurations for myself, and it's not like my OS configuration is a proper program, it's closer to data.
One upside is that because it's hard to write complex programs in nix, people don't do it (unless really needed). So the nixos tutorials and configuration examples on the internet are usually pretty simple. This is good for beginners, and nixos is already a huge undertaking.
With lisp I'm sure many of us would get crazy with abstractions.
I never got the hate for Makefiles. Granted I mostly use them for simple projects, but compiling C project takes just a few lines of code (compile .c to .o, .o to executable, optionally provide some PHONY convenience utils) and is very readable and hackable. What's not to love?
I'm sure I'm missing something, and it's possible that they don't scale well, but I prefer it to any other could system for small C projects.
Honest question, what's wrong with Thunderbird? I never used Outlook, and I use Thunderbird daily so I wonder what I miss [1]. It also picked up development a bit and got some nice improvements, maybe check it out of you didn't recently. But I'm really curious why is it bad.
[1] I'm pretty sure outlook users miss good GPG support, at least.
I am exclusively Google office user, but... Out of the top of my head:
* Google docs are uglier than Microsoft word documents. This matters when I prepare an offer that I want to send to a client, and it should look good.
* Google slides are hideous, and the only reason I get away with using them is because programmers (including me) have no taste[1]
* Related to the looks, I sometimes buy paid document templates that I can use to format my offers. They often have an option to download a docx file, but it's complex through that you can't important it to Google docs without breaking it completely.
* Word/Libreoffice works offline (maybe docs with serviceworkers too? It never worked for me when I needed it).
* You can use word to generate documents using a template, don't think it's possible with Google docs
* Macros are not supported in Google docs
And I'm a complete noob when it comes to document editing software and actively avoid it. I can only imagine how much powerusers miss.
As a long time Linux user, I think problems are partially technical. For example:
* A lot of software used by them is certainly Windows only (they will have to find alternatives, change their workflows or invest in some windows virtual machines)
* Windows tooling for organizations is much more mature. There's a reason virtually everyone uses AD.
* Linux is very focused on user freedoms. This is not usually important in the office. But freedom to configure things is a freedom to break thinks, and cause admin headache.
The problems are solvable, but it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Oh and I love nixos, and I always wonder how realistic would it be to use it in a company for management of thousands of desktop machines. Sounds like it would be perfect for it, but i don't know any stories.