That’s a very, very good read on how to make a very complex C project safer in practice. To sum-up: make it possible to introduce new module in a memory safe language (Rust in this case), make it harder to write bugs in C since the C part is not going to disappear overnight, and use as much tooling as you can to find any existing or newly introduced bugs (both memory bugs a logique error).
robinm
joined 2 years ago
I am always doubtful when people say that accessing information inside git is hard. I totally agree that defaults in git can be improved (and they are, git restore and git switch are a much better alternative to git checkout that I no longer use). So let’s review the section “A Few Reasons Why SQLite Does Not Use Git”:
“Git does not provide good situational awareness”
git log --graph --oneline --author-date-order --since=1week
Make it an alias if you use it often. Alias is what helps you create your own good default (until everyone uses the same alias and in that case it should be part of the base set of commands).
“Git makes it difficult to find successors (descendants) of a check-in”
git log --graph --oneline --all --ancestry-path ${commit}~..
Likewise you could consider making it an alias if you use it often. Aliases can also be used as a post-it to help you remember what are the command that you find useful but you only use once in a blue moon!
The mental model for Git is needlessly complex
I may agree about that one. For reference, this is what the article says:
A user of Git needs to keep all of the following in mind: The working directory The "index" or staging area The local head The local copy of the remote head The actual remote head
If git fetch was run automatically every so often, as well as git push (of course in a personal branch), then this model could be simplified as
- the working directory
- the “index” or staging area (I actually think that being able to have more than one for drafting multiples commit at once, like a fix and a feature at the same time would be better than only having a single index)
- your working copy of the shared branch
- the shared branch
And integrating your changes (merging/rebasing) should probably be exclusively done using a PR-like mechanism.
Git does not track historical branch names
I’m skeptical about the usefulness of this. But since git was my first real vcs (10 years ago), it may just be that I have not used a workflow that took advantaged of persistant branches. I assume that git annotate could be a solution here.
Git requires more administrative support
most developers use a third-party service such as GitHub or GitLab, and thus introduce additional dependencies.
That’s absolutely true but I’m not sure it’s a real issue. Given how many strategies there are for CI/CD (and none is the definitive winner yet) I do think that being able to select the right option for you/your team/your org is probably a good idea.
Git provides a poor user experience
I highly disagree about that xkcd comics. Git is compatible will all workflows so you have to use a subset of all the commands. Of course you will have more commands that you never use if a software is usable for all the workflow that you don’t use. But you need about 15 commands to do stuff, 30 to be fluent, and some more to be able to help anyone. Compared to any other complex software that I use I really don’t think that it’s an unreasonably high count. That being said I totally agree that git from 10+ years ago was more complex and we should correctly teach what is needed to junior. HTML/css/js is a nightmare of complexity but it doesn’t stop 15 years old kid with no mentoring to build cool stuff because you don’t need to know everything to be able to do most of the things you may think of, just a good minimal set of tools. And people should definitively take the time to learn git, and stop using outdated guide. Anything that don’t use git switch, git restore and git rebase --interactive and presents you have to inspect the history in length (git log --graph or any graphical interface that show the history in a graph, git show, and more generally than you can filter the history in any way you want, being by author, date, folder, file type, …) is definitively not a good guide.
To sum-up, I think that from this presentation fossil seems more opinionated than git which means that it will be simpler as long as your workflow exactly matches the expected workflow whereas using git requires to curate its list of commands to select only the one useful for yours.
That's really a nice addition
That's an interesting idea, but as someone else pointed using a voice modulator would be much better. Technical skills are importants, but human behaviors too. I would not trade a nice average coworker for someone who is better technically but doesn't know how to communicate. And typing is complementary, not a replacement for voice communication since the amont of information you can share in a minute is 3-5 times higher by voice.
That's extremely interesting and clear at the same time. This thesis is definitively a gem!
I don't agree with the sentiment that debuggers are sub-optimal for Rust and that's why they are not used. In C++, I hop in gdb all the time, and I'm very fluent with it. But I never had the need for it in Rust. So they may be sub-optimals, IDK, I never had an issue in Rust where the best tool would have been a debugger.
I would never do printf debugging in C++ because it's too complicated to do. In Rust with Display/Debug it's a breeze. And my best debugger for Rust is the compiler itself. But most importantly, most of my bugs are caught at compile time. The few remaining one are logic error and best analyzed with logging, aka printf debugging, and not a debugger that can pause the execution.
It seems extremely interesting.
Something that I have never understood is why code ligature often try to combine two or more symbols into a single one. I like a lot what they did with “(” by fixing the vertical alignment of the “” while still keeping two separate symbols. I personally prefers when the number of symbols is preserved instead of merging them (like for “>=”).
I find “texture healing” a fantastic idea. It does indeed increase the readability of monospace font, without making them non-monospace.
You seems to have a severe issue so I'm not sure what I'm going to say may help.
Learning something and then forgeting it is absolutely normal. Repetition over and exponentially long time and sleep in between helps a lot. Some people use flashcards to helps with memorisation. The idea is simple, when you learn something you write question + answers on a piece on paper (usually bristol for easy manipulation) and put it in a box. This box has multiple compartment: every day, every second day, once a week, once every second week, once every second month for example. When you add a card you add it to the “every day” compartment. Then each day you open all the compartment of the current day and ask yourself all the questions. If you correctly remember the answer you put it in the next compartment, and if you don't you put it back to the “every day” one.
Another way to helps you understand and rembembering things is to explain them to others. If you don't have someone to explain what you just learn you can create youtube video (even if noone will watch them but you do as if you had an audience). As bonus you now have a video that explains using your language something you just learn if you ever forget it!
Moving to git is nice but I don't understand why they don't self-host a gitlab instance.
If you try to learn git one command at a time on the fly, git is HARD. If you take the time to understand its internal data structure it's much, much easier to learn. Unfortunalely most people try to do the former because it works well (or better) for most tasks.
I can't recommand enough the git parable.