hitekker
That leakiness becomes drama when it’s not acknowledged; the energy gets converted to last-minute bugfixes or convoluted workarounds. I’d argue separately that totalization (more than just btrees) threatens a software’s role, and that motivated role confusion forced bcachefs removal from the kernel.
If you meant something besides your own moral superiority, say so.
For real judgements on database products, I'd look to https://jepsen.io/. That author tends to be refreshingly straightforward in a field where many vendors love to cheat by different names
HN is waiting for the source code for pgrust 0.4-preview to be released, the version which allegedly cheated Clickhouse benchmark. So far, the people (person?) behind pgrust has not committed to releasing the offending code, and has instead offered other code (0.4-beta, not preview).
That's how the mob moves.
That's pretty direct. IIRC, the Rust for Linux people also have that refrain informally
It's like arguing about the scoreboard while someone else owns the stadium. Or pretending to have a seat at a table that's (literally) in another country.
From what I've seen: the Pro's wins mostly rely on exploits, not superior gameplay. Those who fight without exploits lose pretty bad, just in the last few hours: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xga636MBOns
Smells like fear
"Upstream has no way to build and test [the long tail] to our own standards" is a certain kind of honesty but not a real answer or a trade-off based in the status quo ante. The status quo, as I glean it, is that C/autotools ecosystem let downstream packagers get from “it compiles” to “it runs” on their own; the new Rust-based one inhibits their freedom to do so.
That said, I respect Astral's decision to prioritize their product by changing their default regardless of the wider ecosystem; I just don't see the point of moralizing it.
As I see it, uv-build is Rust and will stay Rust, so on SPARC or address-space-constrained 32-bit targets may never work right. Astral prioritizes its users who run on tier-1 targets, and the cost of their uv-init default lands on the downstream packages that Gentoo has to build. Gentoo wants projects to choose pure python backends to reduce that ecosystem load, Astral would prefer if more projects default to uv-build (IIRC the default went from hatchling to uv-build in mid-2025).
Long-tail & evolution of ecosystem would be a far more interesting discussion, but the broader community has a "we are the future/adapt to us" sentiment that forecloses trade-offs.
I don't mind the AI but the human needed to put more time into curation and getting the magic right.
I’ve been told “no one thinks a programming language always makes software safer” but the comments here suggest many actually do believe just that. The problem you’ve defined is a threat to the “my language is a silver bullet” belief.
Q: If a young developer said they wanted to fork SQLite and build something better, what would you tell them?
A: ... lots of people have tried. You're welcome to try. I think that the time has passed; it takes twenty five years, and it takes maniacal devotion to the cause.
Penberg's earlier reply said f311a was (paraphrased) "talking crap on the internet" but it looks like they've edited out the cussing.
If you have contempt for most Japanese people, after years of residing in Japan, then you may be the sort of person they'd prefer not to have.
You wrote "the US put him in power" and I say that's babying.
The vibe selects the audience perhaps.
People who are tired and just want to finish their work like the first style. People who want to do more cool work more quickly, maybe without finishing, like the second. Depends on the work, I suppose.
Suharto was responsible for his own rise. He took money and intel from wherever he liked and was basically an independent & ruthless strongman. Neither he nor other Indonesians need to be infantilized by lazy neocolonial narratives.
Free speech talk decorates a claim that, imo, doesn't really have much purchase.
> But when reflecting on the biggest mistakes of his career, Zuckerberg said his largest one was a “political miscalculation” that he described as a “20-year mistake.” Specifically, he said, he’d taken too much ownership for problems allegedly out of Facebook’s control. “Some of the things they were asserting that we were doing or were responsible for, I don’t actually think we were,” said Zuckerberg. “When it’s a political problem… there are people operating in good faith who are identifying a problem and want something to be fixed, and there are people who are just looking for someone to blame.”
TechCrunch then goes on to blame Zuckerberg by insinuation. As someone who dislikes Facebook and Zuckerberg, I think Big Tech is a rather convenient boogeyman for fallout from the 2016 election & beyond.