> Today there is little reason not to use Rust and it can cover both the processing side and the payload software. But people still insist on using C/C++. I'm OK with that as long as I can invoice them.
Any reason _not_ to continue using ocaml besides being less popular?
If popularity/mindshare wasn't an issue, I find the development cycle with ocaml to be nicer in several ways compared to rust on a platform where stuff like python is already allowed (I wouldn't call a full-blown linux system, even with limited memory, "embedded").
In general, if it works, leave it alone; but I can think of two reasons to stop using OCaml:
1) You have been ordered to directly interface with some external library that has a complicated C ABI, and you can't isolate it in a separate process and do IPC, and the FFI would be too clunky or slow.
2) You really need to manipulate lots of bits or bytes or floats very fast, or there are lots of them, and speed or memory footprint is becoming an issue. You need to multicore and/or SIMD, you need efficient abstractions, and you do that kind of thing all over the place, not just in a few functions that you separately implement in C or whatever.
As a bonus here's a good reason for NOT leaving OCaml: You can quickly bootstrap the compiler and run it on small embedded machines. I remember using OCaml on a Cyrix 686 with 64 megs I think, it was perfectly fine. Today, the lights dim a bit when I start cargo build.
Given the kind of computer I had in 1996, you can even run in less, because I did so when the official name was still Objective Caml, and Caml Light was heavily used in education.
The universal contact function is usually there, and it's email. I tried many times: it works. Authors respond. Only very few people seem to want to keep it hidden.
I'm dumbfounded by the number of times I see comments of the form "if the author is reading this ..." on a 3rd party comment side, with a link posted by somebody else, on a forum the author is likely never going to watch, followed by an actually useful comment that you could have _ensured_ the author reads by you know... just contacting him?
Forum comments are just recipe for instant spam, and have been so in the last 10+ years. If you want to make them useful, it currently needs to be actively policed (not to mention: you can be responsible for the content posted as well in several countries now). As an author, only if you're trying to create an audience around your blog, all the hassle around it might be worth it.
Aside from outages, what really bothers me lately about GH is how slow the "app" actually is. Keeping a tab open on a PR status check burns 25-30% of a core on my cpu even when it's hidden. Reviewing large PRs has an awful workflow. Almost every diff page I load starts with "there's nothing here" then starts to load...
Meanwhile: one of the major mobile network in my country announced cisco collab/ipv6 ~5 years ago, but still doesn't provide v6, just v4 CGNAT.
Personal web server running dual stack since early 2010s currently sees 18-20% v6 traffic. When split by type, counting only mobile users it reaches 30% at peak.
Bot/crawler traffic is ironically 100% v4.
Meanwhile: enabled h3 in september last year for the fun of it, instantly at >40% traffic by request count, passing 50% since the beginning of the year, h2 accounting almost all the remaining traffic and plain ssl/http requests <1% being just bots.
Moving off github into a more niche platform was the best choice I have ever made to curb such zero-effort issue and feature requests. It raises the barrier just enough.
On the other hand, I'm a dev, and I hate the "start a discussion first" gatekeeping. I participated in projects where the approach is to start a discussion on a forum first, and I get the same feeling you have as a tech guy calling ISP support on the phone.
The discussion requirement is often to prevent disappointment, waste of time, and anger, when maintainers simple close PRs, because it's not the direction they want the project to go. A lot of people will take this very personally, so it's much better to have a conversation about it beforehand.
I had to go back and check, with "modern invisible scrollbars", and those useless theme settings at the bottom I assumed the page was just some css demo that ended there and left.
Every single web or mobile app does his own custom thing nowadays. As a user I couldn't care less how it's implemented, what I want consistency in behavior and style across the board.
It feels like this has been completely lost, even on platforms like mac where consistency used to be important.
I'd take MFC everything over random behavior if I could.
> It feels like this has been completely lost, even on platforms like mac where consistency used to be important.
There are two kinds of consistency: across apps within a platform and across platforms within the same app. As someone who uses multiple platforms regularly, I have forever been annoyed when eg keyboard shortcuts change when I switch to a different computer, especially when I’m using the same app.
Apps like Discord, Spotify and VSCode are consistently the most pleasurable to use because they are largely the same.
For a unique piece of hardware like the old iPod, it made more sense to do your special custom UX as a unified product. But we’re talking about general purpose computers. The ”platform” shouldn’t be special imo, it should simply be predictable and stay out of the way. They mostly provide the same thing, like copy paste and maximizing a window, yet have different controls. This differentiation adds no value, at least to me.
You forget you’re a minority. Most users use one platform, or at most one work one private (probably with different software). So most software should be optimized for the platform, not consistency across them.
Second this. The "ui" is perhaps useful when learning to use emacs, but every emacs user I've seen after a while has all of it disabled.
I've been using emacs with the "lucid" build since forever, as it's the leanest build that still gets a graphical window working on X11 and see none of the actual "toolkit".
I guess the pgtk build is required nowdays for native wayland support.
Yup, just the other day I was talking about it on subreddit, will repeat here verbatim:
My comment is an honest reflection of long-time Emacs usage. When I started, years ago, I just couldn't wrap my head around the fact that there were no tabs for every file anymore - the concept that was seemingly ingrained into my programmer's brain - almost in every IDE/editor I used before Emacs, I had tabs and a navigational panel on the side. I complained and demanded my tabs, asked on forums and called it "bullshit", when people calmly told me that I truly don't need them. Later I realized - they were right.
Slowly I learned that the wise choice is to remove any distractions - you don't need a minimap, side-panels, complicated modelines, and even line-numbers shown all the time. All that can be activated purposefully, on demand and then toggled off again. These "visual clues" are in fact not so much even distractions but micro-bombardments of your brain neurons - you think they are helping, while in fact they are slowly eating up your neural capacity, to the point that the brain just stops even paying attention to them and they become almost useless waste of your screen estate.
I'm not saying that this all generally true for every case and every user - some prefer certain ways, and it's great that we have a system that is able to satisfy any whim, but it's worth sometimes questioning yourself - am I enslaved by my own mental habits?
Any reason _not_ to continue using ocaml besides being less popular?
If popularity/mindshare wasn't an issue, I find the development cycle with ocaml to be nicer in several ways compared to rust on a platform where stuff like python is already allowed (I wouldn't call a full-blown linux system, even with limited memory, "embedded").