Or use a hair space so it looks almost the same. Or … but you’ve added the right-to-left unicode character. I’m guessing there’s something that looks a lot like a period, too.

If ext4 doesn’t include restrictions terminals probably should.

So … is allowed, or all whitespace, or Zalgo text.

I mean, on the one hand, I guess why be restrictive, but on the other I feel like requiring something that looks like language somehow might be a good idea to avoid edge cases and attacks.

Big projects like Tor actually use GitLab, as well, which is a vote of confidence. Some of these other ones don’t have the same obvious maturity.

I mean, I like a browsable GUI where I can look at a project in more or less detail, and without actually spending disk space.

I meant the person I was arguing with by OP. OOP’s image won’t load for me either, now, but it was basically just a list of things that compile to LLVM.

Hmm. I did something pretty basic, and it worked once I used all the tools and a couple colours.

There’s some kind of irony here. It’s a game about the weird tortured ways we try to distinguish humanity, and it can’t distinguish real art from my rushed doodle.

Everyone doing it was a critical distinction there. OP is making it sound like there’s literally no drawbacks. If that was so, I’m pretty sure tracing would have long since died out. It has come up that a lot of languages do use it elsewhere in the thread.

Which is another reason I’m not so sure Roc is the answer we’ve all been waiting for. Then again, the first few Rust proponents would have sounded the same way.

Did you erase much?

Also reverse.

Then again, it’s always be the same solution rotated, translated and maybe flipped.

Lol, I just got it to work with the grapes included, so they’re optional too. I guess because they’re seedless?

Lol, the rhythm game is actually the last (real) one.

Yes, I left them, avocados and eggplants out.

Since it took me an unreasonably long time:

Where the hell is the guitar cat?

I’m pretty sure I got it including corn.

Yeah, clearly it’s designed to make a mistake sometimes.

That may well be. I’d say I understand the basic concepts, but people in this thread have more detail on the specifics and how they work out in practice than me.

It does make me wonder why everyone hasn’t been doing it, if there’s no drawbacks, though.

I’ve never actually written anything in Rust, FYI - previous projects have been in C/C++ and Haskell. If you’re looking for someone deeply invested in Rust to argue with it’s not me.

If you actually are trying to explain desirable features of a new language, and not just tear down an old-ish one, I feel like you’ve gone about it the wrong way.

Why is reference counting in Roc better than in, for example, Python?

Just in case you missed it, that was unsafe rust that lacks the overheads.

It says some overheads. It’s different overheads, because Rust does not have reference counting garbage collection, even when safe.

Either you should go back and read what I said about reference counting being a runtime garbage collecting algorithm, or I think we’re just done. Why say more if it’s ignored anyway?

I don’t think I’m the zealot here.

Yes, I read or interpreted that wrong at first.

Yeah, it might be better, I don’t actually know. It’s not as novel as OP maybe thinks it is, though.