Do you maybe know some Rust? I'm also not that experienced with FP languages, but Gleam felt familiar enough, due to some Rust-isms, to allow me to focus more on the concepts rather than the syntax. Granted, I spent a few afternoons with it, but if I were to pick a FP language again to wrestle my brain into submission, I'd probably go with Gleam due to familiarity.
I gave up on Rust even quicker than on Elixir haha.
But yea I know about Gleam and I did build some fourier transform stuff with Rust a while back. I like Gleam generally. I am just much much slower with FP and think its extremely unintuituve compared to, say, Go for example.
Even if everyone used it, the security scanners would still have time to do their static analysis of new packages. Basically, all the clients implementing a delay would create a de facto quarantine status for new packages so they can be examined before everyone starts installing them. (Why npm doesn't just implement that themselves, I do not know.)
I think if they did it, then attackers would be able to iterate their attack against their own project, and once it passes the filters they could deploy for real.
I guess it could work better if it was enabled for only actual attack vectors projects.
That’s my point. For whatever reason, npm isn’t doing it. All npm users adding a minimum package age is kind of like doing it as a collective, without npm’s help.
Many places run analyzers on published code; many security users have reason to shorten the period. The default period becomes the period where white hats have a chance to detect it and stop it passing the threshold.
yes, that was my point. as domeone who uses ai extensively to write zig (and someone who has made very small non-AI cobtributions to zig in the past), rejecting ai is currently a strategically good decision for core zig.
It seems cyclical. Maybe the people who stand up for good UX retire and it takes a few years for a company to realize that they're going in a bad direction.
Mazda used to have do the best most user friendly controls and bragged about it as a differentiator... but the new cx-5 is a touch screen-only monstrosity
Anyone exec wanting to move away from touchscreens and back to buttons would have flashbacks to Steve Balmer mocking the new iPhone and stabbing his fingers at the touch panel and making a fool of himself for eternity.
I have an Audi Q7 and a model X. Don't miss the physical controls of the Q7 at all. Given a choice between Tesla software and Android Auto, I'll take Tesla's.
Then again, I'm someone who likes the yoke steering, and invested a few weeks acclimating to the lack of steampunk turn stalks.
For physical controls, it always comes down to "What did you want to do?" There are very few that are actually needed.
I read it as finding a happy medium between analog and digital i.e. people will love the big screen if they still have physical buttons for all the functions they use often while driving. If you force them to fiddle around with touch screen for everything, they'll hate the big screen alltogether because the experience frustrates them.
