![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
Wouldn’t you think that the coffee pays for itself when you factor in productivity?
Wouldn’t you think that the coffee pays for itself when you factor in productivity?
Shills for big foie gras?
I have to run the .ps1 script in a new Command Prompt because the compilation takes a few minutes
I don’t follow this reasoning. Is it because you don’t want to take over the VSCode terminal with a long command? Couldn’t you can open multiple tabs, or run in the background, or use screen/tmux, etc.?
GNU Raster Editing Program - GREP
Graphical Image Tool - GIT
Photo Editing with Raster Layers - PERL
Visual Image Manipulator - VIM
YAML is the Excel of data formats due to the Norway Problem
Until then, we have simdjson https://github.com/simdjson/simdjson
You’re not the boss of me now!
Give me Bluetooth rice or give me death
Not really. I believe : is the “true” builtin. So it’s like running a program that exits with zero and writes nothing to stdout. The >> streams the empty stdout into the named file.
Because now touch does two things.
Without touch, we could “just” use the shell to create files.
: > foo.txt
To bonbatenate files?
That’s funny, plain “programmer” would be my preferred term if it weren’t for the fact that non-tech folks think it sounds like menial work. I’ve landed on “software engineer” because that’s what my employer calls me and other people seem to understand a little bit, too.
I’m terrified by this binary config file. Why?! Was he writing C and said “fuck it, memcpy”?
Edit: I suppose it would be more like “fuck it, fprintf(f, (char*)my_config_object, sizeof(my_config_object))”
Please don’t show me how the sausage is made
Slap an Apple Vision Pro on ya face
Yup!! Never look under the hood in software, you’ll just be disappointed ☹️
Maybe it’s a myth, but it sure sounds plausible. The software that checks the “Windows 9” substring doesn’t even have to exist for this to be reason they chose to skip to version 10 — they just had to be concerned that it might exist.
Sure, maybe there’s no C function that returns the string, but there’s a ver
command. It would be trivial to shell out to the command. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ver_(command)
This doesn’t prove anything, but there are a TON of examples of code that checks for the substring. It’s not hard to imagine that code written circa 2000 would not be future proof. https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+“\“windows+9\””&patternType=keyword&sm=0
Can’t call it Windows 9
But that actually made sense! They care about backwards compatibility.
For those not in the know: some legacy software checked if the OS name began with “Windows 9” to differentiate between 95 and future versions.
The needlessly learned dogs are flooding the job market!