looks like you are right, but...
I almost never used all of this features with bat. Maybe tail -f sometimes.
Do you really need this in daily workflow?
> Though I would argue the absurd amount of undefined behavior makes it not even simple by design.
What? UB is the simplest thing you can do when you just don't want to specify behavior. Any specified behavior can't be simpler that unspecified because it's just comparing nothing with something
believing that rewriting to rust will make code safe is unsafe)
Of course it will be safer, but not safe. Safety is a marketing feature of rust and no more. But a lot of people really believe in it and will be zealously trying to prove that rust is safe.
can you elaborate please?
Why jj is more feature complete for you than git?
I tried jj and for now it looks like too raw. The problem is also its git backed. I really don't want to care about two states of repo at the same time - one is my local jj, and another is remote git repo.
I think jj just has other conceptions compared to git. E.g. in git you probably will not change history too much (if pushed to remote especially), while in jj simple editing of commits is a front feature. So, comparing them in feature completeness looks strange to me
After some experience with jj I understand that jj is a user-oriented, user friendly tool with batteries included, while git is double-edged knife which is also highly customizable
you wrong
You can simply use modules with includes.
If you will #include vector inside your purview then you will just get a copy of the vector in each translation unit. Not good, but works. On the other hand. If you include a vector inside the global module fragment, then the number of definitions will be actually 1, even if you include it twice in different modules.
Well, the standard says you can, but it doesn't actually work in practice in msvc, which is the only compiler that's supported modules for over a year.
sure, but don't forget that rust gives us also a nice tooling, functional syntax sugar like pattern matching, enums, monads; and other more or less useful things like explicit lifetimes
Of course.
This is kind of to be expected as it has the benefit of hindsight of 25+ years. It is infinitely easier to design better things with all the accumulated experience and know-how of what works and what doesn't under your belt. It would have been truly horrifying if that had not been the case.
That being said, Rust is really about lifetimes. That's the big ticket selling point. My point above was that 1) it isn't a silver bullet and 2) it can be a real hindrance is many applications.
reply