Well == is a question or a query rather than a declaration of the state of things because it isn’t necessarily true.

You can write

a = (3 == 4)

which is perfectly valid code; it will just set a to be false, because the answer to the question “does 3 equal 4?” is no.

I think you’ve got it anyway.

Ok after reading the article this is bullshit. It’s only because they are counting JavaScript and Typescript separately.

They seem exactly the same to me: when a variable is assigned a value, it’s equal to that value now.

Yeah it’s confusing because in maths they are the same and use the same symbol but they are 100% not the same in programming, yet they confusingly used the same symbol. In fact they even used the mathematical equality symbol (=) for the thing that is least like equality (i.e. assignment).

To be fair not all languages made that mistake. There are a fair few where assignment is like

x := 20

Or

x <- 20

which is probably the most logical option because it really conveys the “store 20 in x” meaning.

Anyway on to your actual question… They definitely aren’t the same in programming. Probably the simplest way to think of it is that assignment is a command: make these things equal! and equality is a question: are these things equal?

So for example equality will never mutate it’s arguments. x == y will never change x or y because you’re just asking “are they equal?”. The value of that equality expression is a bool (true or false) so you can do something like:

a = (x == y)

x == y asks if they are equal and becomes a bool with the answer, and then the = stores that answer inside a.

In contrast = always mutates something. You can do this:

a = 3
a = 4
print(a)

And it will print 4. If you do this:

a = 3
a == 4
print(a)

It will (if the language doesn’t complain at you for this mistake) print 3 because the == doesn’t actually change a.

Interesting how they build a community starting with rebasing on top of Gitea, and then hard-forked later. Probably a good blueprint for forking.

GPL move also seems like a good idea - it reduces the chance of needing yet another fork.

Can they get whoever came up with the excellent name “Codeberg” to fix the terrible name “Forgejo” though? It’s not quite as bad a name as GIMP or Got, but still…

Also i absolutely hate how they talk about moderation. You can’t just say “someone was banned for some actions”. That doesn’t inspire confidence at all! Imagine if the police were always saying “one of your peers was sent to prison for a crime” and refused to say who or what they did. That’s communist Russia territory…

They claim they can’t say because of the right to be forgotten but that’s not what the right to be forgotten means.

… in one benchmark.

It does still have a traditional assignment operator. You can assign values to mutable variables.

Also I would say let-binds are still pretty much assignment; they just support destructuring. Plenty of languages support that to some extent (JavaScript for example) and you wouldn’t say they don’t have assignment.

I don’t think it affects the ability to overload = anyway. I think there aren’t any situations in Rust where it would be ambiguous which one you meant. Certainly none of the examples you gave compile with both = and ==. Maybe there’s some obscure case we haven’t thought of.

>= and <= match the mathematical operators. The question you want to ask is why doesn’t it use = for equality, and the answer is that = is already used for assignment (inherited from C among other languages).

In theory a language could use = for assignment and equality but it might be a bit confusing and error prone. Maybe not though. Someone try it and report back.

https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/205125

Also I found this duplicate: https://github.com/microsoft/vscode/issues/211508

There’s probably more…

They’ve been doing that for about the last 6 releases. I wish they’d fix some of the long-standing annoying bugs like the fact that you can’t respect .gitignore and search in a subdirectory at the same time. Or the fact that you can’t stage a submodule unless you also have that submodule open.

Or how about a less annoying way to configure Run/Debug than launch.json?

Still, can’t complain. It’s mostly free and still very good overall. I’ll definitely be watching Zed… but maybe not too closely until it supports opening large files.

Yes, but I was talking about Linux in general. I’m pretty sure Gnome at least has commercial backing.

And Linux advocate never say “don’t use Linux; it isn’t a commercial product so it isn’t as good as Windows” do they? They say “you’re an idiot for using Windows; Linux is better”.

GPU reset recovery

Woah catching up to Windows 18 years ago! :D

Tbf I did not think we would ever see this feature. What next, secure login prompts (“press ctrl-alt-del to login in”, which admittedly Windows seems to have dropped)?

Yes but they frequently ask for optional donations too. Are you a parasite for not donating?

I think he meant the idea of shaming companies for not donating to things.

I don’t think you can blame them for this. How many resources do you use without voluntarily paying extra above your legal requirements? Do you donate every time you go to free libraries, museums, parks, cathedrals, etc? I certainly don’t and I don’t think that makes me “the parasite class”.

No that’s a subtly different thing. The storage is a contiguous vector, but because it is a ring buffer there must be one pair of adjacent elements that are not contiguous in memory. That’s what that comment is saying.

But because it is only one discontinuity it doesn’t affect algorithmic complexity, so it is still O(1) to access elements, unlike a linked list which is O(N).

If you google “circular buffer” there will be loads of diagrams that make it really obvious how it works.

Standard ring buffers or circular buffers are implemented as continuous vectors, with a read and write pointer.

Rust’s VecDeque is a ring buffer: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/collections/struct.VecDeque.html

Zero surprises. It’s the same as in any other language.

I think once things get established the people in charge see any attempt to change it as some kind of personal insult, so they just go into defence mode. You see the same thing e.g. with Python - for literally decades they’ve denied that performance matters and it’s really only recently that that has changed.

I think it will only get worse for C++ because the people who understand this stuff have mostly given up on C++.

Yeah I mean it’s definitely a reference volume of last resort, rather than a tutorial you would read cover to cover. Clearly a genius but he explains things as if you already understand them, and can also read his mind.

That said, for a lot of the content the only alternative is research papers and they are even less accessible. I definitely would only use it if I couldn’t find answers anywhere else though.

This is about Spectre, not about buggy hardware implementations.

Spectre is a fundamental flaw in speculative execution that means it can leak information, so it’s a security vulnerability. Apparently Intel has been imposing draconian requirements on software to work around the issue rather than fixing it in hardware, which is obviously what they should do, but is not at all trivial.