There is no part of Rust that is defined. Try linking to the language definition, it doesn't exist.

However, as I mentioned before, you are completely unable to admit it.

They're obviously not planning on looking at the output.

He put some scale in his scale.

Computers are guided by algorithms, amazing.

Even if you use AI, bullshit is still bullshit. That doesn't change.

If a software engineer can suprivise 1 million lines of code being written a month, then there is no job for software engineers anymore. A single person can't verify that much code in a month, so writing code would no longer be an important skill.

The difficulty here isn't the Rust (since literally anything can be rewritten in Rust with more or less difficulty); the difficulty here is the Ai.

Yeah, at that point you don't need a software engineer at all. You just need a manager to write the correct prompt. The engineer can't read all the code.

How is that worse than you, unwilling to admit that Rust is undefined completely?

It's the kind of death you expect to see in Grand Theft Auto.

One popular thing that works on Windows and not on Linux is Apple Mobile Device Service. This is the component of iTunes that lets a user sync MP3 albums, such as those bought on itch.io or Bandcamp, onto the Music app of an iPhone over a USB cable. As a driver, it is outside the scope of Wine.

Until the maintainer receives an issue report requesting a package for a particular distribution. For every one report, there are probably dozens of cases where another prospective user considered using a particular piece of software but did not because there was no package.

I read Package Forge's inclusion criteria. In order to get distributed in PkgCache, the application first needs to "be a well known package" and listed on a website called Repology. And Repology's inclusion criteria appear to be meant for distributions' repositories, not individual project maintainers' repositories.

A CEO was looking for a friend?

Breaking code that works is job security. "don't break code that works" is something that most of the programming world has given up on, unfortunately (along with KISS).

I don't think that's true, unless you insist on immutability. In particular, it IS possible to do safe IO, most languages can handle it. For Rust, it's just a matter of defining the proper rules that make IO safe, and then enforcing them.

Good point, I should have more compassion for people like that

Like this: https://it.slashdot.org/story/...

I lived through the goto era and I'm not sure it's a good thing.