> I wish they made a breaking change in the next version and make the CLI actually usable.
As I understand it, they're attempting to make it "actually usable" by adding more consistent (and maybe even "intuitive") options to the syntax. In order to avoid a breaking change, though, they're also leaving the old confusing stuff in. Sure, it's regrettable that it's there in the first place, but understandable that they don't want to break people's scripts from, by now, decades back.
Sure, that makes it a little harder to learn, but it can be done, by just making a conscious decision to ignore those crufty old bits.
They shouldn't break the existing `git` command as it is widely used in scripts. But there are projects that try to build better UIs on top of git; the most serious such attempt that I know of is magit.
While acknowledging that git's CLI is often unintuitive: `git tag` lists tags, `git branch` lists branches, and `git remote` lists remotes, so I don't think I understand this particular objection.
Compare it with `git branch -a` and `git remote -v`. That's my point. Not only are they all different flags but you'll get half the data you could be getting and not know why. It's impossible to google
You point is what, that these are needlessly asymmetric? It's true. But they're in my head because I do them every day, and it's not like I'm suffering under the burden of remembering a handful of flags. That's a pretty far cry from "not actually usable", so maybe your hyperbole is a little misplaced?
Correct. That was a simple example that's easy to understand
Anyone with half a brain can understand that if they can't keep something as simple as printing a list consistent you better believe nothing else will be straightforward. Which is my point. NOTHING is straightforward and I haven't met a single person who likes the CLI if they do anything more complex than a commit, push and pull. I know people who still refuse to use rebase and don't understand bisect or blame. They use a GUI to restore files
AFAIK I and most people can't run it due to freebsd not supporting our hardware. Does it support intel wifi and GPUs? (I'm using an amd GPU). Can I run netflix or prime and get 1080 resolution? (note on linux I need to use a addon to achieve this)
Yes, it does support Intel WiFi and GPUs, and in some cases (all GPUs, more and more WiFi) it uses code borrowed from Linux. For Netflix you'll need to run Linux Chromium or Firefox using linux(4) (https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/handbook/linuxemu/), because of widevine.
In some sense, this has the same problem as TFA: who is going to seed those disused repos (same problem with ipfs linked in the sibling comment, which one can pay a "pinning node" but pay)
Google's latest earnings were less bad than most of it's competitors - Facebook and Snap choked hard, while google just slowed a bit (and less than was expected), so it's not just the stock that did well.
Here is the problem...is Open Source less secure because people find more software bugs, or is that accomplishing the whole purpose of open source technology? With the source code public, people find more bugs and it comes across as less secure, but they ultimately get fixed. A lot of those same bugs go unnoticed for years in proprietary software, and as a result its less secure. Yeah, proprietary software can be audited, but you only have like one or two guys doing the audit. They are going to miss something big. More eyes is better than few eyes.
As far as the phone number goes, the person above is more focused on anonymity than anything else. You having your phone number tied to it is a pretty big cause of concern if that is the goal you are after unless you use a throwaway number.
Calling convention? That's the most exciting feature? It doesn't boost productivity, reduce compile times, offer a larger standard library or create a boost a reasonable language would provide?
No thanks google. I've been saying that for years now. You jumped the shark
The author has expertise in C++ and is excited about a C++-like language that addresses the pain point of C++'s calling convention which will _never_ be fixed by the standards committee due to their commitment on backwards compatibility.
This was not an overview of the language, so this comment seems a little uncharitable to the author.
Having slightly better optimizations due to changing ABI doesn't sound worth the friction of having another language in the codebase. Especially when the guys who invented it (google) is famous for sunsetting things and couldn't get their peers to use bazel, the other thing google invented
I don't care if this sounds uncharitable, I see the pitfalls and I seen so many people get sucked in to prior pitfalls
Before you downvote, ask yourself how do you list tags, branches and remote