I’m sure writing their own ORM would have given them instantaneous insight into this issue and introduced no other challenges. Open source developers hate this one weird trick!

Especially for things used directly, you need to understand both, own and third party code, roughly to the same level. With own code, you only care for your own use case; with third-party — you have to kind of get everyone else's.

Depending on what you do and the dependency's scope, either way can make sense.

You’re just a bad driver;)

And it couldn’t have happened to a worse company.

Starting a new language with header files (.h)? No thanks. I’d rather leave the 70s behind.

Did a little reading on Fil-C and… “Also, it's slow – about 1.5x-5x slower than legacy C.”

So that’s dead on arrival.

Thanks for your contribution. I really like it and switched to it immediately when it came out. The initial theme was not quite right but it’s good now.

They fixed a bug on a tool that is widely used. In what world is questioning why an organization is checking in a file that you have no context on a “better question”.

“Windows has announced a commitment around the Rust programming language as part of Microsoft’s Secure Future Initiative (SFI) and has recently expanded the Windows kernel to support Rust.”

This article is pure garbage. Here are some of its sins: * It says that SQL was introduced in 1974 and could be used for web applications (the web was invented in 1989). * Then it calls AI “Artistical Intelligence”. * And it never even talks about the topic of its title: what’s next for SQL.

It also claims that SQL is hard to learn, while in my experience it is quite easily picked up by many, including less tech-savy.

It is hard to master, but that goes for pretty much any skill.

Unless you’re using Internet Explorer, every browser works on every site. I’ve never had Chrome installed even as a backup. Have yet to find a site that doesn’t work on Firefox.