Lets put it this way, no engineer is choosing to use bitbucket. You use it because some SVP made the mistake of choosing atlassian software a decade ago and refuses to change.
Yes. poetry & pyenv was already a big improvement, but now uv wraps everything up, and additionally makes "temporary environments" possible (eg. `uv run --with notebook jupyter-notebook` to run a notebook with my project dependencies)
This is it. Later versions of python .11/.12/.13 have significant improvements and differences. Being able to seamlessly test/switch between them is a big QOL improvement.
I don't love that UV is basically tied to a for profit company, Astral. I think such core tooling should be tied to the PSF, but that's a minor point. It's partially the issue I have with Conda too.
> Later versions of python .11/.12/.13 have significant improvements and differences. Being able to seamlessly test/switch between them is a big QOL improvement.
I just... build from source and make virtual environments based off them as necessary. Although I don't really understand why you'd want to keep older patch versions around. (The Windows installers don't even accommodate that, IIRC.) And I can't say I've noticed any of those "significant improvements and differences" between patch versions ever mattering to my own projects.
> I don't love that UV is basically tied to a for profit company, Astral. I think such core tooling should be tied to the PSF, but that's a minor point. It's partially the issue I have with Conda too.
In my book, the less under the PSF's control, the better. The meager funding they do receive now is mostly directed towards making PyCon happen (the main one; others like PyCon Africa get a pittance) and to certain grants, and to a short list of paid staff who are generally speaking board members and other decision makers and not the people actually developing Python. Even without considering "politics" (cf. the latest news turning down a grant for ideological reasons) I consider this gross mismanagement.
I think the big difference is that these aren't AI generated bug reports. They are bugs found with the assistance of AI tools that were then properly vetted and reported in a responsible way by a real person.
From what I understand some of the bugs where in code the AI made up on the spot, other bug reports had example code that didn't even interact with curl. These things should be relatively easy to verify by a human, just do a text search in the curl source to see if the AI output matches anything.
Hard to compute, easy to verify things should be the case where AI excel at. So why do so many AI users insist on skipping the verify step?
The issue I keep seeing with curl and other projects is that people are using AI tools to generate bug reports and submitting them without understanding (that's the vetting) the report. Because it's so easy to do this and it takes time to filter out bug report slop from analyzed and verified reports, it's pissing people off. There's a significant asymmetry involved.
Until all AI used to generate security reports on other peoples' projects is able to do it with vanishingly small wasted time, it's pretty assholeish to do it without vetting.
Thats a bit uncalled for. This is a game made by someone shaped by their perspective on the world. It can be appreciated as such without applying your own additional intent.
This is such a funny take. In China corporations operate at the behest of the government. In the US the government operates at the behest of corporations.
That's changing, though. They <are> working together, but the balance is tilting towards the US government and worse, towards individuals controlling it.
Which should also be deemed very inefficient, if I understand correctly. Germany's growth was unsustainable. A realistic example would be Spain, where 36 years of real-world fascism left the country well behind comparable countries.
All that means is an interchange of definitions: Chinese calls "corporations" what US calls "government" and vice versa. But not fundamental different reality.
On planet Floorp, carpets (organic bipedal tetrapods) use people (machines that suck air) to clean vacuums (woolen floor lining). How quaint - no, not really, that's exactly the same as on Earth but with different words.
There are good arguments to be made that the USA's government is corporations, and the entity we call "the US government" doesn't actually meet the definition of being the government of the US.
My guess is that there aren't that many folks using zed over neovim/emacs. It seems like a more suitable alternative to vscode or jetbrains IDEs which imo have at least the same level of financial risks involved. At the end of the day it is just an editor and moving to something is pretty minimal effort if things do go in a direction you don't agree with.
I feel similarly. For me I know it is because of my rejection sensitive dysphoria. The fear of someone seeing and judging something personal of mine is quite uncomfortable. I don't have the same issue with code I write professionally.
It is less personal. I am writing code in the same style as the rest of the code base. Its more focused on correctness than my preferences. If someone critiques code in a PR I don't take it personally as it is usually in good faith.
