Yeah I agree, they are but I guess what I’m trying to get at is in day to day conversation I use “programming language” as a term for compiled languages hence “real” and “scripting language” for scripting languages. I never say “real” in conversation, just in the context of this post and as I mentioned it’s not to say scripting languages aren’t good languages, just how I separate them. Your distinction is much better in more comparative dialog such as this

I’m aware of the increasing prevalence of JIT, that doesn’t change the other markers I listed. Ironically though the language the post is about, CPython still lacks JIT. Also I disagree in general, there are things scripting languages can’t do and will never be practical for. It’s not that they aren’t useful programming languages, that’s not what I’m saying but I think having a separate category for them is useful.

I personally draw a distinction between “real” programming languages and scripting languages. Scripting languages being languages that are traditionally source distributed. They tend to be much easier to write, run slower, often but not always dynamically typed, and operate at a higher level than “real” programming languages. That’s not to say they aren’t actually useful or difficult to learn etc. It’s not a demeaning separation, just a useful categorization IMO. Not to say the categorization always holds water in all those attributes, luajit is way faster than Java but it does follow the other bits. As someone who loves C there are lots of languages that seem too limiting and high level, doesn’t mean they aren’t useful tho.

Yes, honestly this situation reminds me a lot of the LTT trying Linux and destroying his system by installing steam despite apt warning him in the best way it really could that he probably didn’t want to do that. Sure the package shouldn’t have been in that state in a stable distro but shit happens. It goes to that point of, users will go through great lengths to achieve the end goal blindly jumping past warnings on the way no matter how dire they might be.

It’s not a bug, it’s intentional. They consider changes to be any change since the last commit including in untracked files. They did update it to make this behavior a lot more obvious though.

Huh, weird. The rest of these are pretty closely related technologies but I’m not sure I’d consider a web framework and a pre boxed website builder all that similar

What is the ruby on rails supposed to be?..looks like ruby on rails with off colors to me, I can’t place that logo. The rest of these are truly cursed tho

He said they’re not going to change it, just make the dialog a lot more clear and add a second button to it that will only do a reset without the clean.

-_-…8 needs to die already. Most of my projects heavily depend on modern features, I even have one that straight up requires JPMS

Don’t you mean buttbuttinate?

Most of the situations I encounter RSA are in projects where I hope RSA is implemented correctly. I have a lot of Let’s Encrypt certs that are still RSA and my main SSH keys are still RSA. All of these were generated quite some time ago. I understand the problem with projects that implement it incorrectly but I’d hope OpenSSH and certbot aren’t those projects 😥

Fact of the matter is RSA is perfectly secure still…and ECDSA/ED25519 should also be extinct given the rising need for post quantum cryptography

I do whenever there is a vulnerability of note. I don’t do it on a regular basis though.

Just checked, I’m at 311 on my main server

This meme must be old as Java 9 added jmods

Huh, yeah I suppose that’s true. Qubes is an interesting project but I’m not sure it’s for me. I selectively isolate apps I worry about using containers, I actually should give flatpak a try as it basically does that for me but I haven’t seriously tried it yet.

Ollama is also a cool way of running multiple models locally

Eh? Idk if I agree. My original comment was entirely a joke based on the fact that the literal argument of=/dev/sda has no affect on my system but to address your actual point. I personally don’t find nvme naming any more confusing than SCSI. /dev/nvme0n1 is only one char away from /dev/nvme1n1 just like sda vs sdb. Additionally if you understand how the kernel comes up with those names they make a lot of sense. The first number is the controller, the second is the namespace or drive attached to that controller, the 3rd if present is the partition on the given drive. It is entirely possible to have a controller with more than one namespace. That aside aside…I think there is a genuine benefit to be argued for having USB drives, which are SCSI and fall into sdX naming separate from system drives as I dd far more USB media than system media. Making it a lot harder to screw my system up when trying to poke a flash drive.

I am immune to /dev/sda for I only have nvme

I’m both IT and development…and I’ve caught both sides being utterly wrong because they’re only familiar with one and not the other