They did the same thing in Amsterdam. There were a lot complaints at the beginning, but the city became much nicer in the end. Immediate improvement was the reduction of noise. Studies have shown that there was only a 5% increase of travel time. For example, that would be 1 minute on a 20 minute trip. That is because the largest determinant of average speed are the intersections and not the maximum speed limit.
I notice this from within a car as well. Cars take forever and waste so much space taking turns, merging, switching lanes. The issue seems to grow exponentially with vehicle size as well; nippy small cars turn and navigate a lot better compared to American genital compensation trucks.
Even cycling into the city from my neighbouring town (~10 km) can be faster than a car at peak rush hour, because city traffic is just an absolute gridlock (this is in Galway Ireland, the traffic of which is notoriously bad even by Irish standards, but still).
So, for the records, when epidemiologist say "speed kills", the fact that high speed are more dangerous for your health is not the point.
The main cause of mortal accidents is loss of control, way over attention deficit (depend on the country, in mine its 82% but we have an unhealthy amount of driving under influence, which cause a lot of accident classified under attention deficit. I've seen a figure of 95% in the middle east). The majority of the "loss of control" cases are caused by speed. That's it. Speed make you loose control of your car.
You hit the break at the right moment, but you go to fast and bam, dead. You or sometimes the pedestrian you saw 50 meters ago. But your break distance almost doubled because you were speeding, and now you're a killer.
Or your wife put to much pression in your tires, and you have a bit of rain on the road, which would be OK on this turn at the indicated speed, but you're late, and speeding. Now your eldest daughter got a whiplash so strong they still feel it 20 years after, your second daughter spent 8 month in the coma, and your son luckily only broke his arm. You still missed your plane btw.
The world differs greatly when it comes to socially acceptable (or even legal) honking. In Sweden barely anyone honks unless to avoid serious accidents. In Spain, there is some honking, even when you just mildly inconvenience someone. In Peru, honking is a way of life/driving, and to communicate with other drivers, even when you just pass someone normally.
When I was in Thailand, people honked at pedestrians to let them know they were passing them. Not angry honks, just toots. Different culture. It left a lot of confused tourists.
What? How? Where I am it is endless. Maybe it used to be worse but I have never heard of or seen someone getting a ticket for it or seen a single sign or heard an elected official so much as mention it.
In Atlanta you get honked at for merely not breaking the rules like the person behind you thinks you should. For example, not taking a right turn on red where the sign says "No Turn on Red", or not pulling out into oncoming traffic because the person behind would be crazy enough to do it.
This may be the case, but as a Helsinki resident I am always surprised when visiting either Stockholm or Tallinn, because their drivers always seem more likely to honor zebra crossings than drivers in Helsinki.
Other places have introduced the same limit and haven't seen the same results.
People who are likely to have crashes are likely to be able who ignore the limit. One of the biggest problems in modern policy-making is the introduction of wide-ranging, global policies to tackle a local problem (one place that introduced this limit was Wales, they introduced this limit impacting everyone...but don't do anything about the significant and visible increase in the numbers of people driving without a licence which is causing more accidents...and, ironically, making their speed limit changes look worse than they probably are).
Your example is definitely not a good example of global policies for a local problem. In Wales it was up to the local councils to identify areas that under proper safe circumstances would keep their different limits, defaulting to being reduced to 20mph if nothing was done. That's a very sensible way of handling it.
I have no idea about your stats on driving without a licence being more of a problem than speeding, accidents on roads that got the speed reduced to 20mph or 30mph decreased by 19% YoY, that's a big impact for mostly no additional policing needed.
...you are just explaining that it was a global policy for a local problem. I don't know what to tell you. The global policy is 20mph.
It sounds like a big impact if you don't know anything about statistics because, obviously, you would need to know some measure of variance to work out whether a 19% YoY decrease was significant (and I don't believe the measure that reduced 19% was accidents either). This hasn't been reported deliberatel but that is a single year and that is within error. You, obviously, do need more policing...I am not sure why you assume that no policing is required.
People driving without a licence/insurance are more of a problem than someone going 30mph...obviously. Iirc, their rate for being involved in accidents is 5x higher. If you are caught doing either of these things though, the consequences are low. Competent driver going 30mph though? Terrible (there is also a reason why this is the case, unlicenced/uninsured driving is very prevalent in certain areas of the UK).
That's not how a global policy works is it? The process was closer to a central guidance with enough notice for local councils to override it if they had the means to justify it.
You don't need additional policing as you can reuse most of the speed limit infra that's already in place, just the baseline that has changed. It's orders of magnitude easier compared to the effort to catch a single unlicensed uninsured driver.
And regarding the stats: the official report is just one google away https://www.gov.wales/police-recorded-road-collisions-2024-p.... The numbers are declining in the last decade but it accelerated to rates not seeing in the past apart from the pandemic.
> These collisions on 20 and 30mph road speed limits (combined), resulted in 1,751 casualties, the lowest figure recorded since records began. This was a 20% decrease from the previous year, the largest annual fall apart from 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic).
About collisions:
> ... It is also 32% lower than the same quarter in 2022 (the last quarter 4 period before the change in default speed limit)
And casualities:
> ... The number of casualties on roads with 20 and 30mph road speed limits (combined) in 2024 Q4 was the lowest quarter 4 figures in Wales since records began.
There's no mention of widespread licence or insurance compliance problems on the official report so not sure where you're taking this as a significant problem.
> People who are likely to have crashes are likely to be able who ignore the limit.
... which is why you have to do actual road design. You can't just put up a speed sign and hope people will magically abide by it. Roads need to be designed for the speed you want people to drive. When done properly the vast majority of drivers will follow the speed limit without ever having to look at the signs, because it'll be the speed they will feel comfortable driving.
> You can't just put up a speed sign and hope people will magically abide by it.
Off topic, but one of the more maddening things I see here in the US is signs which say "End thus-and-such speed limit." I don't want to know what the speed limit was. I want to know what it is!
In Ontario a new speed zone is always signed with "BEGINS" below it, which is very helpful if you missed the last sign. I wish this was standard practice across Canada.
In much of Europe, including the UK, they have the concept of standardised "national" speed limits, which vary depending on the road type and which you are expected to know. When a road returns to the national speed limit, the sign is a white circle with a slash through it, indicating that there are no more local speed limits and the national speed limit is in effect.
There are at most three standard speed limits on Europe: built up areas, highways and motorways.
I find this easier to remember than the constantly changing limits in the USA. In my two weeks here, I've seen every multiple of 5 between 5 and 70mph.
In Sweden at least, there's an informal rule that a new speed zone is marked with speed limit signs on both sides of the road, whereas a continued limit is marked with a sign only on the driving side of the road.
I never quite saw the point though -- my response is the same either way: adhere to the limit that applies going forward. (I suppose maybe it's useful feedback of inattention and the need for rest?)
I believe you're referring to Braess' Paradox, right? This was a very surprising effect for me to learn about, just recently Veritasium covered it in their video on a mechanism that becomes "shorter when you pull on it": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QTkPfq7w1A
It isn't road design, it is behavioural/cultural. People will drive recklessly when they do not care, for whatever reason, about the people they may injure by doing so. That is it. If you look at comparisons between countries, it is clear that means are different.
There are people who don't care at all, but most people will drive around the speed that the road encourages. That includes things like how straight the road is, what kinds of interactions, the presence of sidewalks, trees, and many other clues.
Neighborhoods can be designed to send signals about the appropriate speed, without signs or rumble strips or speed bumps. Some people will ignore these, just as they'll ignore signs, but most drivers will do what they expect for that kind of road.
The thing is, the vast majority of people - regardless of culture - have some basic sense of self-preservation. Speeding is easy when that 30km/h road is designed like a 120km/h highway. Speeding is a lot harder when that 30km/h road has speed bumps, chicanes, bottlenecks, and is paved with bricks rather than asphalt: if you try to speed, it'll quickly feel like you need to be a professional rally driver to keep your car under control.
Deliberately making roads "unsafe" forces people to slow down, which in turn actually makes it safe.
That's true. I stopped riding the bus because the road to the stop had big speed bumps put in, and it turns out distracted drivers fly off the road when they hit them, and one near miss was enough to make me drive instead (sure it's a cognitive bias, but it's enough to make me pick the more convenient option). One fewer pedestrian means one fewer potential pedestrian death!
I think you also have to enforce it. Helsinki also has many automatic speeding cameras. I doubt just putting up a 20 mph speed limit sign would make a big difference without more enforcement.
Speed sensors that turn the traffic light red for 10 seconds are also quite effective without making the place dystopian with CCTVs and fines. I've seen it in Portugal. At the other end is Austria, which uses cameras and fines.
Maybe not but people tend to not go more than 5-10mph over unless they’re on the interstate/highway. If it leads to overall significantly slower traffic it’s worthwhile.
The real reason is Finnish absolutely draconian fines that scale up with income and really really strict enforcement. Make fines start with $500 and go to thousands and actually enforce them and not what SF is doing and we'll have the same but people over here don't like to hear it...
How are the fines "draconian"? Everyone is fined the same when measured in time.
If someone making minimum wage ($7/hour) gets a 30 year sentence for murder, should Jeff Bezos ($1,000,000/hour) be able to get out of jail for the same offense after only 110 minutes?
If recklessly speeding costs the same as a cup of coffee, how is the fine supposed to act as a deterrent?
Arguing semantics here. Over here they fine you very little to relative average income. The fines in sf are exactly same as in the middle of nowhere because they are mostly set at state level
I'm not sure about the enforcement part. In Finland we have one of the lowest amounts of policemen per capita, traffic police seriously lacks resources. Moderate speeding is pretty common due to that, despite the fines. Maybe it's better in Helsinki than other cities or the countryside, I don't know.
I regularly drive about 300km trips without seeing a single police car, only one static traffic camera on the way.
I’ve driven my fair share of kms around Finland and trust me - it’s way more strict than here even though we probably have much higher traffic cops per capita number on paper
The fines are not draconian. Those insane sums that end up in headlines are always from super rich folks bitching about how they should be allowed to speed because they're such net contributors.
do they charge as a % of annual income or wealth? I think that would be the key in the USA. I'll risk a $300 ticket for speeding, probably not a $3000 ticket
They lowered the speed limit by 5mph (8 km/h) throughout the entire town I live near. As far as I can tell, it just means that people now drive 15mph over the speed limit when they previously were driving 10mph over.
The last fatality on the major road closest to my house involved someone driving over 60mph in a 45 zone.
There was also a near-miss of a pedestrian on the sidewalk when a driver going over 100mph lost control of their vehicle. That driver still has a license.
I don't think lowering the speed limit to 40 (as they recently did) would have prevented that.
Yes, that's why the second half of the equation is structural traffic calming: you both need to lower the speed limit and induce lower driving speeds. The US has historically not done a great job at the latter, and has mostly treated it as an enforcement problem (speeding cameras and tickets) rather than an environmental one (making the driver feel uncomfortable going over the speed limit, e.g. by making roads narrower, adding curves, etc.). You need both, but environmental calming is much more effective on the >95% of the populace that speeds because it "feels right," and not because they're sociopathically detached.
That's slowly changing, like in NYC with daylighting initiatives. But it takes a long time.
(European cities typically don't have this same shape of problem, since the physical layout of the city itself doesn't encourage speeding. So they get the environmental incentive structure already, and all they need to do is lower the speed limit to match.)
The part where they are deliberately choosing to endanger their fellow citizens?
Damage scales with the square of speed. Speed limits aren't put in place for fun, they are there to reduce the number of accidents. A speed limit says "Accidents are likely, slow down to reduce the severity of them". Hitting a pedestrian at 30 km/h means they'll be injured, hitting a pedestrian at 50 km/h means they'll be dead. If you're speeding, you're essentially saying that you arriving a few seconds faster at your destination is more important than someone else dying.
On top of that, a difference in speed greatly increases the number of accidents. If everyone drives at 30 km/h, that one person at 50 km/h will constantly be tailgating and overtaking. That is far more likely to result in accidents than simply following the car in front of you at a safe distance.
I think you misread this. The point was that >95% of people drive over the speed limit because it feels right, not because they’re sociopaths. Making it feel wrong to speed is sufficient for most people.
This is no secret. The slower transportation is, the safer it is. Those aren't the only parameters though. There is a cost to making the speed limit arbitrarily low. Without discussing what the cost is, this is a bit of a pointless discussion.
I agree, but if the streets are set up accordingly, it's about as fast as you'd normally want to drive anyway.
For the standard US road with 12-foot-wide lanes and generally straight-ahead routes, 20mph does feel very slow. I've driven on some roads though where narrower lanes, winding paths, and other "traffic calming" features contribute to a sense that 20mph is a reasonable speed.
That's fine if the public transport is up to scratch, as well as the cycling infrastructure.
Where I live it's woefully inadequate making driving the only viable option for most journeys.
This has a knock on effect of making cycling down right dangerous in places, because of all the cars + relatively high speed limits, like I wouldn't want to cycle from my house to work, it would be at best unpleasant, and I would be taking my life in my hands on some of the roads.
Even where public transport and cycling infra is more than adequate, you still have to restrict cars.
Otherwise some people will choose driving to an extent that it screws up the public transport for everyone else.
At least that's the lesson from London's buses. Paris built a more extensive metro system (London's tube is equivalent in the areas where it operates, but less than half the city is within 15 minutes walk of a Tube stop) so that part is deconflicted at least.
But Paris is running into the same issue as they try to build out their cycle network. It can't be done without restricting cars, much to the annoyance of those who've built lifestyles around driving.
Which really isn't at all necessary in a city like London or Paris, but that doesn't mean people don't do it.
I'm not ideologically against people driving, especially EVs, but on a practical level it seems to be very difficult to accommodate demand for driving in a dense-enough-to-be-interesting city without screwing everything else up: pedestrian and cycling safety, bus reliability, street space usage, noise and air quality.
What do you mean by "Paris"? If it's the City of Paris (Paris intra-muros), then it's not comparable to London in terms of size or density. IMO, for the purposes of this discussion, Paris should mean the whole Paris region, since most of the people live outside the actual city limits. And in those areas, access to public transportation is hit or miss. Some people are close to suburban trains, but many are not.
Then, another consideration, which is also very important, is what the available transportation actually looks like. By that I mean how often are there trains, how reliable are they? And, in Paris and probably Central London, too, are you actually able to get on board, or do you need to wait 3 trains packed to the brim?
I don't know about London, but in Paris, the suburban trains have quite poor punctuality.
Note that most car traffic in Paris is actually people from outside the city proper, so those who are most affected by these transit issues.
Additionally, a lot of traffic also goes from suburb to suburb, which, currently, is a terribly bad joke transport-wise. When I was in college, the drive from my parents' house was around 20-30 minutes. Public transit was over one hour with multiple changes, one of which had around one minute of leeway before a 30 minute wait. They are building new circular lines around Paris, but they won't be ready for a few years.
As someone who ever only walks or takes public transit I'm all for limiting car noise and pollution. But what I'd love to see is some form of improvement of the offer (a carrot). Riding around packed like sardines in trains with questionable reliability is a tough sell. I'm lucky enough I can modulate my commute hours to avoid peak times, but not everyone is so lucky. Right now, the city is mostly spending money on making driving hell (all stick).
And bikes are fine, I guess, if you have where to store them. I wouldn't leave any kind of bike unattended around my office. There's also a bike sharing scheme which used to be nice, but for a few months now it's basically impossible to find a usable bike. And I tend to avoid peak times for those, too.
London is mostly ok for overcrowding since the pandemic and remote working. Before that it was a big problem.
The main problem with the buses isn't a lack of them, but that they get held up by endless car traffic. When the roads are quiet, they're efficient.
Suburb to suburb is a challenge for most cities, but I'm not convinced people need to do that as much as they say, it's more they do it because they can. There's some journeys here that are awkward without driving, but in a city of ten million people you're pretty spoilt for choice either way.
I've only visited Paris for work and tourism, but the rail network seems denser there and better set up for short trips - London's trains are fast but they rely on buses to fill the gaps and for short trips: the Deep Tube stations take you quite a long time to get to the platform, so if you're going less than about 2km it's often quicker to walk.
And in the centre of town, walking is as quick as the bus, hire bikes are the quickest way of getting around, but when I've used them I've found they can be in poor condition.
Good design is just that: de-sign. US roads have so. many. signs. Instead of just designing the roads and streets to not need signs in the first place.
Authoritarian has a definition, it's not just "people who make laws that keep me from doing what I want."
People in the USA still complain in the same way today about laws mandating seat belt usage, but it's still not authoritarian. It's a net positive for the wearer and everyone around them, and it's incredibly childish to push back on something for no other reason than because someone is telling you to do it.
I don't claim to have the perfect definition for authoritarian behavior, but I would say that intending to consolidate authority is pretty key to it. Which making drivers' life miserable isn't really connected to, or at least I really don't see it.
Otherwise, the typical government is a central authority made up of people, carrying out lawmaking, adjudication, and enforcement activities [0], and so basically all of them could be characterized this way, with sufficient bad faith. So I'm not sure that's a very meaningful claim.
It definitely could be a misuse of power regardless though, but there's no evidence that I see in your comment that would suggest it was the officials in question misusing their powers rather than aligning with community sentiment or interests.
In my understanding, authoritarianism is not only defined by the desire to strengthen their own power, but also by the desire to bring the way of life of all other people in line with their own moral values.
For example, the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior and has nothing to do with consolidate of authority
The persecution of homosexuals absolutely has an impact on consolidating authority.
* Some of your political opponents will be homosexual, so it gives you an avenue to remove them. You can turn a blind eye to your political allies, if they are discrete.
* You can use the accusation to persecute anyone.
* It sets the frame that the authority governs every private aspect of your life.
Amazing mental gymnastics, literally every point is applicable to prosecution for not wearing a seat belt.
Only there are even more people who do not wear seat belts than practicing homosexuals, i.e. by your logic, a fine for not wearing a seat belt is MORE AUTHORITARIAN than the law on persecuting homosexuals.
Sorry, I was not making a point about the larger discussion about wearing a seatbelt.
While I agree that we shouldn’t have laws regulating seatbelt usage (for adults), I find your comparison disgusting and think it does more harm than good for gaining support.
> the persecution of homosexuals is widely recognized as an authoritarian behavior
I have unfortunately missed out on that then, because I both do not recognize it as authoritarian behavior, nor do I recognize that recognition to be widely established at all.
There is a distinct correlation between authoritarian regimes and homosexuals being persecuted that I'm also aware of, but this is absolutely the first time I've ever heard someone describe the persecution of homosexuals as an authoritarian behavior.
Maybe we read the phrase here different? When I read "authoritarian behavior" I do not read it as "behavior associated with authoritarians", but instead as "behavior that is authoritarian in its nature".
i think a large part of this that often goes unstated is the suburban sprawl that causes people to need to drive longer distances near pedestrians to begin with -- do you live in an area with wide streets, many single-family homes, and parking lots? when i've lived in city neighborhoods with dense housing i've only had to drive far/fast to leave, and when i've lived in the middle of nowhere i wasn't at risk of flattening pedestrians
Whatever happened to the person choosing to operate dangerous machinery being the one responsible for it? Putting the onus of safety on everyone else is incredibly selfish and of course illogical.
Oh, and I'll be sure to tell my blind friend to look both ways before crossing.
Looking both ways is undone if drivers are speeding, not bothering to stop at stop signs and being generally unpredictable and dangerous.
Blaming pedestrians for getting run over by speeders that are too impatient to drive at safe speeds in residential areas is a ludicrous opinion to take.
I’d go a step further and say blaming pedestrians for getting ran over when a driver can’t pay attention to avoid them is a ludicrous opinion. If anyone disagrees I ask what traffic rule is more important than a human life?
If anyone disagrees I ask what traffic rule is more important than a human life?
How is that relevant? This is simple physics, the laws of reality which you seem to be desperately trying to avoid to make some sort of ideological point.
What do you mean? Rules, laws, and blame are not simple physics. It is a driver's responsibility to pay attention when driving. I will ask again in a different way: what situation is it correct to blame a non-suicidal pedestrian for their own death when struck by an automobile? Surely it is an ideological point that I believe there is no situation where I think the pedestrian should be at fault for being hit by a car, but if you disagree (it seems like you do) I ask why you believe the rights of the automobile is greater than the cost of a human life.
Were you forced to operate your vehicle by the pedestrian crossing the street? No? Then take responsibility for your own damn choices. You're the one endangering everyone around you, not the pedestrians.
It may feel like you aren’t going very fast, but at the end of the day you’re probably only arriving at your location a couple of minutes later than you normally would and when applied at scale this could potentially save thousands if not tens of thousands of lives a year depending on how widely this is adopted. Hell maybe hundreds of thousands, but I don’t know the numbers well enough to make a claim that high, seems steep at first glance.
Surely we can agree the pros outweigh the cons here? I can wake up 5-10 minutes earlier for safer roads.
No, it doesn't. Those low speed limits are only used for smaller residential streets. It only impacts the part of your journey from your home to the edge of your neighbourhood, and the same at your destination. Regardless of journey distance, the vast majority of your trip will be spend driving on roads intended for through traffic - which will of course still have a higher speed limit.
Percentage-wise it is only going to meaningfully impact your travel time if you stay within your own neighbourhood. At which point the only logical response can be: why are you even taking the car?
Fwiw, this is how my American neighborhood is set up and it's completely tolerable. Nobody is more than 5 or 6 blocks from a "through traffic road".
It's also got stop signs on virtually every intersection, so speeding is basically gone. A lot of people ignore speed limits, but I've never met anyone that blanket ignores stop signs on 4 way intersections. You're not getting much faster than 20mph in a single city block without making a very obvious amount of noise (at least in an ICE).
If you have to go a meaningful distance you are going on highways, interstates, etc. where this is irrelevant. Anywhere super dense where this would matter likely has a more robust train/subway system than other parts of the country. The % that falls in between is likely very small.
If we were a real country, we would actively hunt down people who express this sentiment and seize their vehicles until after they satisfy a psychological exam.
Sorry to say but if we can reduce traffic accidents by a significant margin this way, people being annoyed at having to drive slower is a fine price to pay.
You suck at safety. Weather, distracted driving, vehicle design, drugs, and even safety inspections all contributed to safer streets. Ducks have a preen gland near their tails that produces oil, which they use to waterproof their feathers.
Normalizing it and saying it is a mundane topic 30 years is actually helping these powers to install it, like getting tired over time and ending just accepting it. The reaction should be much stronger from the tech companies but the tech companies are actually supporters of it, just so they can continue hoarding money while violating other laws.
-> Discord/Google/Meta/etc are already scanning the private chats for pictures, and they didn't wait for a law.
To fix pedophiles, supporters of terrorism and gang members, there is a more radical solution: fund justice and police so dangerous people can be put in jail (or kill them if that's something you think is right).
Once this is done, there is no need anymore to monitor conversations outside of current scope.
Though, justice is not fair in practice, so there will be collateral innocent victims (like with privacy invasion) :/
I'm eying Zed. Unfortunately I am dependent on a VS Code extension for a web framework I use. VS Code might have gotten to a critical level of network effect with their extensions, which might make it extremely sticky.
Sad to hear that. I really enjoyed VS Codium before I jumped full-time into Nova.
(Unsolicited plug: If you're looking for a Mac-native IDE, and your needs aren't too out-of-the-ordinary, Nova is worth a try. If nothing else, it's almost as fast as a TUI, and the price is fair.)
> Why isn't there a decently done code editor with VSCode level features but none of the spyware garbage?
Because no other company was willing to spend enough money to reach critical mass other than Microsoft. VSCode became the dominant share of practically every language that it supported within 12-18 months of introduction.
This then allowed things like the Language Server Protocol which only exists because Microsoft reached critical mass and could cram it down everybody's throat.
Because telemtry is how you effectively make a decently done editor. If you don't have telemtry you will be likely lower quality and will be copying from other editors who are able to effectively build what users want.
Taste and empathy maybe, but their choice of licenses, technologies and priorities can still be juvenile to the point of sinking their company.
Just look at the amount of excitement in their industry right now. New IDEs are springing up practically by the week. Are any of these new IDEs based on Zed?
No, of course not. GPL closes the door on that, and who would want to own a fork of a tool that's so painful to develop? Developers working on VSCode can probably do an average dev-test cycle in 1-5 seconds. I've no idea how long the Zed dev-test cycle is, but I hear Rust builds are notoriously slow so I assume it's more like 1-5 minutes.
With the help of subsecond[0], we're seeing <1 s dev-test cycles for changes to Rust GUI projects these days :) That's with a fast CPU and optimized compiler settings, but it's competitive with things like Flutter and the web stack.
Even without hotpatching, Rust incremental compile times are on the order of 10 seconds, not multiple minutes. Clean compiles still take minutes, but that's a "once-a-week" workflow usually.
Not sure if Zed has gotten it hooked up yet, but things are changing rapidly in the Rust GUI (and games) space because of Dioxus's innovation here.
Thank you for educating me. I don't actually work with Rust so I shouldn't be spreading misinformation about it without knowing what I am talking about.
It doesn't really change my multitude of problems with Rust as a language for a project like Zed. Zed feels like a cathedral to me in the Eric S Raymond sense. Rust feels like a language for building cathedrals. Javascript is the language of the commons, which is why the idea of a hackable IDE in JS was so brilliant. Somewhere along the line the team forgot what made Atom great (despite its flaws).
It’s still worth buying physical books that sound interesting to you even if you don’t read them, because then you can have an impressive shelf of books in your home that you might read someday, or someone else might want to read from.
With these steam games? No physical copy means you’re just throwing money away.
We need better ideas & tools to assist in problem solving.
Not invasive implants.
reply