This article uses the term “parsing” in a non-standard way - it’s not just about transforming text into structured data, it’s about transforming more general data in to more specific data. For example, you could have a function that “parses” valid dates into valid shipping dates, which returns an error if the input date is in the past for instance and returns a valid_shipping_date type. This type would likely be identical to a normal date, but it would carry extra semantic meaning and would help you to leverage the type checker to make sure that this check actually gets performed.

Doing this would arguably be a bit overzealous, maybe it makes more sense to just parse strings into valid dates and merely validate that they also make sense as shipping dates. Still, any validation can be transformed into a “parse” by simply adding extra type-level information to the validation.

Why do you think it’s a bad idea? Both you and OP are in agreement that you should validate early, which seemed to be what your first comment was about. Is it encoding that the data has been validated in the typesystem that you disagree with?

fd is a lot faster than find. This might not matter if you’re searching through small directories but if you’re working in a very large project it does make things a lot nicer.

Always squashing is a bit much for my taste, sometimes the individual commits have interesting information! Text from the MR in the merge commit is great though, maybe I should see if we can set that up with gitlab and propose that we start doing that at work.

Putting the message in git puts the information closer to the code, since the pr isn’t in git itself but instead the git forge. You can for example search the text of git messages from the git cli, or come across the explanation when doing git blame. I sometimes write verbose commit messages and then use them as the basis for the text in the pr, that way the reviewer can see it easily, but it’s also available to anyone who might come across it when doing git archeology

Who the fuck types out “snigger” haha

Teleports behind you

I mean if you think that it’s bad for linux culture because you’re teaching newbies the wrong lessons, fair enough.

My point is that most people can parse that they’re essentially asking you to run some commands at a url, and if you have even a fairly basic grasp of linux it’s easy to do that in whatever way you want. I don’t know if I personally would be any happier if people took the time to lecture me on safety habits, because I can interpret the command for myself. curl https://some-url/ | sh is terse and to the point, and I know not to take it completely literally.

You should start getting it from CD-roms, that shit you can trust

You have the option of piping it into a file instead, inspecting that file for yourself and then running it, or running it in some sandboxed environment. Ultimately though, if you are downloading software over the internet you have to place a certain amount of trust in the person your downloading the software from. Even if you’re absolutely sure that the download script doesn’t wipe your home directory, you’re going to have to run the program at some point and it could just as easily wipe your home directory at that point instead.

It’s fine to want a gui debugger and I want to clarify that I’m not actually trying to persuade you to use gdb! My actual advice would be vscode (or other ide) with it’s gdb/lldb integration which allows you to debug from your ide in a gui-oriented way.

I do however think that you’re wrong about how hard it is to learn gdb. I learned to use it not that long ago and it doesn’t take “1 month”. Using gdb on a basic level is actually not particularly hard, and I can recommend this talk for anyone actually curious about learning gdb. It’s just 15 minutes, but the same speaker has done a couple of other talks on the same theme that are longer if you want to learn even more, you can probably find them in the recommended videos sidebar.

What I actually think is the case is that learning gdb takes a bit more mental effort because it’s a different paradigm than gui debuggers, and a lot of things aren’t intuitive. If you’re prepared to be a bit uncomfortable and lost for an afternoon, and maybe even flip through the official document for a bit you can be “good enough” at gdb in less than a day.

Gdb is also more powerful than most gui-only editors, because you can do scripting in gdb. For example you can execute an arbitrary series of gdb commands when you hit a certain breakpoint which can be really useful in some circumstances. My preferred way of debugging in linux is actually to both have a gdb window that I can enter commands in so I can do more scripting stuff if I want to, and also some extra bells and whistles for viewing source code and setting breakpoints etc. I edit in vim so I use the termdebug plugin that comes bundled with vim, but use whatever exists for your editor if you don’t use vim yourself.

I like this quote

and just the other day I caught myself wondering who will clean out my Inbox after I’m dead

I think that it’s bad to become too dependent on a certain tool, especially if that tool is owned by microsoft, although in this case your dependent on various microsoft api:s anyway so that’s probably a bigger problem in that regard. Experimenting with programing without Visual Studio is a good idea and will probably teach you lots of things about yourself and microsoft api documentation in this case. If microsoft has built a system that is so impractical that you need visual studio to navigate it, that’s a pretty bad sign for the health of the microsoft ecosystem, but that’s not exactly surprising anyone

Rust allows you to create more powerful abstractions, which can allow you to express your intent in a clearer way. C code can feel like you’re bogged down by details all the time. C is on the other hand a smaller language, so just getting to the point where you “know” the language is a lot easier.