MS Office switched to XML tentatively in 2003 and fully in 2007. The latter formats were standardized (Ecma, ISO) into Office Open XML, but even the previous version were accessible. I don’t remember whether the spec was publicly available, but you could study the output of some valid documents and figure out what went where.
Aren't the keys encrypted with a PIN of your own chosing which you set and verify in the app?
--
As a side note, it seems to me that what you call "ulterior motive" is essentially vendor lock-in and I don't think that qualifies as an "ulterior motive".
This looks like spam to me. A lot of the links in the article point to pages on the same site, rather than the original sources. For example, the links for Firefox and Brave point to download pages on TechSpot.
The walrus operator, the `match` statement, the f-strings etc. these seem like just syntactic sugar. Also note the type hints are optional. So these changes are opt in: you can still write the Python of yesterday. But, if you can afford to take it up a notch, you can write the Python of today. I don't see Python getting harder for the newcomers, instead I find it getting better for the ones who have invested deeply into it, and I quite enjoy it.
Only for personal projects, with no outside contributors, no external dependencies, etc.
If you want to read someone else's code, e.g. to learn more, or see how one of your dependencies works, etc. then you may need to face these features.
If you want to allow external contributions to your project, then you'll have to face these features (even if that just means an informal coding standard that says "don't use XYZ").
If you want to work more closely/collaboratively with others, e.g. in an organisation, then you'll have to face these features (even if it's just a discussion about whether to allow them).
If you want to write tooling for the language, e.g. parsers, doc generators, linters, formatters, diffing tool, etc. then you'll need to face them.
Finally, if you're writing library code that's intended for use by others, you need to be aware of such language features, in case they break any of your assumptions. For example, a library might rely on the fact that lambdas can't re-bind variables (they can mutate the content of an object, but they can't change the reference, since '=' is a statement rather than an expression); the introduction of ':=' expressions violates that assumption.
In the real world, I'm still nagging people to use docstrings and type hints.
It is really not my experience that people read PEPs and try to shoehorn in language tricks they don't need into their random scripts at $DAYJOB.
I would actually be thrilled to see a walrus operator show up in a PR from one of my coworkers. But I'd have to shoot it down because we need to be compatible with 3.6.
What if a newcomer wants to make sense of a large codebase that uses all the new features?
It used to be that Python was mostly similar to pseudocode, easy to understand and reason about. Now all this "syntactic sugar" just makes it harder to read IMO.
> In April and October 2021, the Kremlin has moved more than 100,000 soldiers towards Ukraine.
> This week Putin started moving his army west from the eastern military district.
> Defense expert Scollick warns that the massive relocation «[is] understood to be headed west to complement and support operational build-up near Ukraine's eastern border».
> Scollick: «The large-scale logistics movement is indicative of the equipment needed to sustain a combat operation. And it's not just equipment. Most of these trains contain passenger cars for troops and freight cars for their equipment.»
> Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov yesterday declared talks with the United States and NATO over. The West, Ryabkov said, said "no" to Russia's offers.
I would love to hear from one of the Adobe team members about this. Are there separate React teams and WC teams? What’s that dynamic like? It feels like Photoshop on the web has been framed as ‘powered by web components’, rather than WCs being a minor detail. This post mentions “islands of React code” as if React is a legacy thing they have to put up with https://web.dev/ps-on-the-web/
I work on React Aria. Adobe is a big company and there are many teams using different technologies. In general, some very new parts of creative cloud chose to use web components, but the majority of teams are using React, and I don't foresee that changing anytime soon. It's definitely not a company wide shift if you got that impression from the Photoshop article. Ideally we'd collaborate more, but... big company silos.
I can see the appeal of web components when your interop issues are as large Adobe’s must be. On the other hand if huge portions of your apps are canvas / wasm then web components’ DOM-centric component model might feel awkward or constraining
When I canceled my Adobe subscription 2 years ago, there was no way you could do it from your account. I had to contact support, then spent about about 10 minutes with them until they confirmed my subscription will no longer renew automatically. It took that many minutes because on the one hand they are not the quickest to reply, on the other they’re trained to push another year down your throat. You tell them that you haven’t used it in months and they’re like yeah, sure, but did you know you can get 10% off if you renew?
It’s like when you’re at McDonald’s and they ask you if you’d like a soft drink for the full menu. Two differences though: I’ve never seen a McDonald’s clerk insisting on the drink after I tell them it’s not necessary. And, most important, at McDonald’s they sell you a $0.99 Coke, while Adobe (and a lot others) sell you $119.88/y subscriptions.
Not quite the entirety of it: "magicul" means "magical" in Romanian.