Oh really? Nest, Kinect, Smart TV and the Internet of Things suggest otherwise. Not to mention remotely monitoring the ambient surroundings of a smart phone, tablet or laptop with microphone/webcam. It may be difficult to bug everyone, but we're bringing the bugs into our homes willingly (though mostly unknowingly, I think), so it's more concievable than you think.

This part I have no solution for. : (

I gave you one: Step away from the computer, walk past the smartphone, leash up the dog and head for the woods (or nearest park/nature preserve/whatever). When that becomes illegal it's game over.

So now you are placing your trust in those who wrote the code that runs your server or encrypts your data (or did you write it yourself?). Better than believing "trust us - we don't track you/log you/etc" (looking at you, Startpage and DuckDuckGo), but you have to trust someone unless you do it all yourself from scratch. That's not possible for most people, including myself. So most of us are left with choosing amongst Faustian bargains. That fucking sucks, but seems to be the reality in modern times. And it gets even better, because if you end up choosing the best shitty compromise that actually kind of works, you flag yourself for extra scrutiny because you are using an effective solution. FML. I'm going for a hike in the woods with my dog. Ahhhh. That's better.

Apparently several.

Moonshadow (song)

In situations where moving the original object physically to its destination is difficult or cost prohibitive, and there is no further need of the original at the source (maybe it only has utility at the destination). The most obvious case would be from Earth to space, either to a location in orbit, or eventually another planet.

https://xkcd.com/54/

What does the Fox say?

> Windows 10: Can Microsoft Get It Right This Time?

Outlook not so good

How about "STEEM" (with an extra E for English)?

Or to be more culture neutral - "STELM" (with L for Language)?

You're being pedantic. (And I'm about to follow suit.) Paradigm *isn't* a fancy buzzword - it is a word with a clear definition that has been in use since the 15th century. It's fame as a buzzword comes from imprecise overuse during the last decade or so. The word itself is fine.

Here's another definition, this time from Merriam-Webster: "a theory or a group of ideas about how something should be done, made, or thought about". That seems to fit the discussion pretty well when referring to different ways to approach the decidely non-trivial task of defining at a fundamental and conceptual level how a programming language works.

You mention "style". I don't think it's really equivalent to paradigm, though it could apply to variations of a paradigm. Style involves the details in how you implement a paradigm - it's not a paradigm itself. Merriam-Webster supports this assertion: "a particular form or design of something" and "a particular way in which something is done, created, or performed" (emphasis mine).

But I grow tired of this nitpicky exercise. You may have the last word if you wish (preferably with concrete examples of why you believe you are correct rather than vague generalizations and unfounded assertions regarding awkwardness and clarity). I've said my piece and I'm done with this. Good day.

Actually I looked it up and based on the definition of the word ("a distinct concept or thought pattern"), its use in the given context seemed appropriate, so I kept it in. "Style" seems to imply something more arbitrary, while "model" is a way of describing reality using simplified concepts (or a plastic thing I used to build as a boy, or something I found appealing as a teenager). Paradigm seems right.

Thanks. I was going to mention that there was a dedicated person (Steve Klabnik is his name, BTW - http://www.steveklabnik.com/) who was doing a great job and has just been momentarily overwhelmed. I decided it sounded too much like an excuse that "drinkypoo" wouldn't find convincing, given that "drinkypoo" (*snicker*) clearly has high standards of professionalism. So I decided to mention the API docs instead, which have been most helpful when sorting out code breakage due a change in the nightly version of the compiler. Actually, much of the time, the extremely clear error messages emitted by the compiler have been enough to make the correct changes to fix errors, which is almost better than good documentation. The latter is more useful in understanding why the code was incorrect, even if the compiler message is often enough to correct the problem.

I wouldn't bet on that horse staying in the lead forever (well, horses plural). Those of us with long enough memories remember when this wasn't true. Here's a thought experiment: How did they get dominant in the first place, since at one time they were new and different? Things change and improve over time, and that's a good thing. Besides, Python and JS developers aren't necessarily the target audience, though there may be some overlap between them and potential Rust developers. For some reason "The Blind Men and the Elephant" comes to mind, and the term "tunnel vision" as well. :-)

That's a rather uninformed statement to make, given that you're referring to a rather short time period when the rate of change caused the docs to lag behind. That will be corrected soon, I'm sure. Besides, the API docs, which are generated from the code, *are* correct and have been kept up to date all along despite the rapid rate of change. So documentation exists and is correct. The GP was likely referring to the higher level docs, such as guides and tutorials, which aren't produced by "the devs".

But hey, at least you got your *zing* in, though you forgot the rimshot at the end.

I agree with you in principle, except for the "it competes ... really well" part. That's an unfounded assertion since it hasn't actually competed in the real world yet. Because, you know, not being finished yet. The true challenges are still in the future. It seems to have successfully passed the early "get people interested" stage, which is nice, but there are a bunch more hurdles to be surmounted before I would call it even a marginal success. Let's wait and see.