> thus it would be unsafe to continue execution of previously executing async functions.
There's more nuance than this. You can keep polling futures as often as you want. When an async fn gets converted into the state machine, yielding is just expressed as the poll fn returning as not ready.
So it is actually possible for "a little bit" of work to happen, although that's limited and gets tricky because the way wakers work ensure that normally futures only get polled by the runtime when there's actually work for them to do.
Could you share some of the references you tried to use here? It might be interesting to see the quality that they refused to accept towards overturning their narrative.
> The Nazi's killed, through bulk extermination, 13,000,000 people. Literally bulk gas chamber stuff.
Is that what they did first? Or did they strip the citizenship away from their undesirables so they were illegal immigrants in their own homes, and used that as pretense to deport them to camps?
People who say these types of things should link their wikipedia user account so we could see why they were banned and if it really was so unreasonable.
> a native stack [is] just a form of memory allocator
There is a lot riding on that “just”. Hardware stacks are very, very unlike heap memory allocators in pretty much every possible way other than “both systems provide access to memory.”
Tons and tons of embedded code assumes the stack is, indeed, a hardware stack. It’s far from trivial to make that code “just use a dummy/static allocator with the same api as a heap”; that code may not be in Rust, and it’s ubiquitous for embedded code to not be written with abstractions in front of its allocator—why would it do otherwise, given that tons of embedded code was written for a specific compiler+hardware combination with a specific (and often automatic or compiler-assisted) stack memory management scheme? That’s a bit like complaining that a specific device driver doesn’t use a device-agnostic abstraction.
Most of the music I make on Suno is stuff that would never ever be made, a love ballad that only uses the word lizard, an anime intro to the "Lord of all Milk"
Heh, this is super interesting to hear. Single threaded async/concurrent code is so fun and interesting to see. I’ve ran some tokio programs in single threaded mode just to see it in action
> Araq will state his personal & honest opinions, which may come off as abrasive or "un-welcoming" in your opinion. I don't agree with everything he says but that's OK.
Nope. This is a sop, an equivalent to the non-apology "I'm sorry you took what I said so badly".
Aggression masquerading as "honesty" has no place in any organisation that wants to be taken seriously.
It's most certainly not "OK" when Andreas' personal opinions are expressed in ad-hominem attacks.
Nim unfortunately has a toxic Dictator at the top, and his subordinates defend his behaviours. While this continues nobody should take Nim seriously.
I think there is a problem sometimes that "debunkers" are often more interested in scoring points with secondary audiences (i.e. people who already agree with them) than actually convincing the people who believe the misinformation.
Most people who believe bullshit were convinced by something. It might not have been fully rational but there is usually a kernel of something there that triggered that belief. They also probably have heard at least the surface level version of the oppising argument at some point before. Too many debunkers just reiterate the surface argument without engaging with whatever is convincing their opponent. Then when it doesn't land they complain their opponent is brainwashed. Which sometimes might even be true, but sometimes their argument just misses the point of why their opponent believes what they do.
> However you also wouldn’t be able run use select! in a while loop and try to acquire the same lock (or read from the same channel) without losing your position in the queue.
No, just have select!() on a bunch of owned Futures return the futures that weren't selected instead of dropping them. Then you don't lose state. Yes, this is awkward, but it's the only logically coherent way. There is probably some macro voodoo that makes it ergonomic. But even this doesn't fix the root cause because dropping an owned Future isn't guaranteed to cancel it cleanly.
Believe it or not, me (not white, did not grow up in the West, had the faintest clue about Nazism) used to do what you would consider a "Nazi salute" when I'd see friends and wave to them from a distance. I don't know how I picked that up but it happened.
I'm not saying that Musk is doing the same; but that one can be charitable and say he probably did not mean that. I mean, what does he stand to gain from doing so? He's a businessman.
Please don't assist curious Netizens place their IP address in extremely suspicious web logs. Not everybody is using a VPN here, and accessing this full leaked confidential document or distributing it could be potentially encriminating
> it feels like an external activation rather than an emergent property of my usual comprehention process.
Isn't that highly sus? It uses exactly the terminology used in the article, "external activation". There are hundreds of distinct ways to express this "sensation". And it uses the exact same term as the article's author use? I find that highly suspicious, something fishy is going on.
I wish for both to succeed. I'm more of a Nim guy, but it's nice that there is a modernized C-like alternative to C gaining traction.
My biggest complaint about both is the lack of built-in run-time polymorphism. Rust gets you comptime and runtime polymorphism in one complete package. Nim makes use of shallow inheritance, which I find hacky, because it only lets you go one level deep. And Zig's stdlib makes it the norm to construct vtables manually, which is absolutely grotesque in my opinion. Why are we manually creating vtables in a "modern" language in 2025?
Id argue that not having food because you didn't receive a needed cash transfer, esspecially when children are affected would definitely constitute "Irreparable harm."
> Using a DIV means you start from empty plate and explicitly add the features you want to add,
Yep, which guarantees you will not add everything that's required for e.g. accessibility. It's not realistic for every single dev to be aware of every single important property of a button. This approach just doesn't scale.
On one hand, yes. But also, cars are now an appliance. They rarely break, can be bought quite cheaply (if that’s what you want) and consume little time. I like this.
