Doesn’t Rust’s safety guarantees mean automatic reference counting? Or am I misunderstanding. I guess it means more like happening dynamically at runtime.

I’ve heard a lot of good things about the book “automate the boring stuff with Python.” It focuses on practical examples more than the theory. It’s also available for free since it is licensed under Creative Commons. That said, I haven’t personally checked it out. Just mentioning it as something that focuses on goals and works towards accomplishing them, which sounds like what you’re looking for.

Eh, I don’t really see a problem with releasing an app before you “should” release one. I don’t think the world improves by discouraging amateurs from sharing their work. Now whether they actually try to learn and grow or just keep vibe coding, who knows.

I guess in my mind I just associate raw pointers with low level. But I guess Rust lets you do that with unsafe blocks still?

My point is that the natural, not trying to push the limits definition of wheel is already much broader than door.

My bedroom has about four doors in it, but even just one dresser has like 16 wheels inside of it, two per drawer.

Depends how generous we are with the definition of door. Do we consider any sort of opening a door? Is the way bugs get into the ground a door? If so, then doors. Otherwise it’s probably wheels. I think the general definition for what we consider a wheel (without getting really loosey goosey like I was before) is much more broad. A door is something for a person to open and close. A wheel is a round thing that spins. Even if you’re thinking something like “well, buildings have a lot of doors, and there are more buildings than cars…” Consider that a lot of furniture has wheels. Drawers have wheels. My dishwasher has a “door” but the racks have wheels. My office chair has 5, maybe 10 depending on how you count. I’ve got like four in the house I think. That’s already like 40 wheels from just office chairs.

Fork me on GitHub!

Is rust low level? Genuine question, not trying to start an argument. I guess I sort of view it as low level but with a high level compiler lmao.

Yeah, I think the flow was this,

1. Is this vibe coded?
2. Partially, because of some of the features of Rust.
3. Borrow checker?
4. (Humourous misunderstanding ensues.)

Basically asking if the thing that gave them trouble was the borrow checker.

This is funny, and I do think it’s fair to take little jabs at vibe coders, but just be careful. When I was learning to play a game in the past I asked a question. People thought the answer was obvious because the rules were on the thing I was asking about, but I was so new to the game I didn’t even know what those words meant. If this was any other context, I’d be hesitant to give someone flak for not knowing a technical term like that. (The context being that somebody vibe coded something.)

I’m not sure if your comment means you’re rusty (heh) or a novice who hasn’t tried programming in a while, so I’m sorry if this comes across as condescending. The best advice I try to give everyone is to chase the fun. That advice applies both to people learning and hobbyists doing stuff.

I see a lot of folks argue about what’s the best way to begin or where the best place to begin is. There’s no best way. Everything builds into each other. You become a better programmer regardless of what language you choose.

Rust was fun! I fiddled with it a bit a few years ago. The only real frustration I had was that it complained a lot about half correct programs. Like in other languages I may have just been able to put some bad code or something in some place I didn’t really care about and wasn’t focusing on, but Rust is very strict. It’s been long enough now that I forget exactly what specifically bothered me. It could have just as easily been that it was because I didn’t know it well so the compiler was just the messenger of that lol. Other languages could have just blown up at runtime.

I forget exactly where I heard it and the examples given, but the quote stuck with me. Given the chance, gamers will optimize the fun out of a game. It’s a big game design problem.

I’ve seen NES and combination SNES/NES clones for sale at Microcenter (or maybe it was somewhere else, I don’t recall, but it wasn’t the type of store to be selling illegal things). So, yeah. Bleem! (a commercially sold PlayStation emulator) was found to be legal in court. I don’t think hardware products doing it are any different.

The main problem is that most places selling handheld emulators out there are also bundling ROMs of every game. And that is illegal.

I’ve been dabbling for years, but my old computer couldn’t run Windows 11. That delay made me wait long enough to see all the recall shit, so my new computer has been Linux since day 1, no dual boot.

But that’s entirely the point the meme is trying to make. It’s pointing out that gen alpha has an alarming amount of it. It’s like saying “This is actually a dark comedy, there is a layer of irony over the humor” then you jump in and say “hey, it’s not their fault the director decided to mix sadness in!” I’m not even attacking them lol.

Living rooms bedrooms dinettes!

Ulterior motives!

“Where have you been, Clark?”

“There are some rooms in the back of my furniture store.”

“Wait, say that again…”

And as far as I know this community’s instance doesn’t do down votes, so any down votes are from your home instance. Never seen such a ratio on Lemmy before, wow.

6 7 6 7