It does sound interesting and I signed up for the wait list. But I actually don't like pure chronological order. It feels like I have to look at everything to find the good stuff. Here I probably won't miss out too much if I check the front page once a day.
I have a Pixel 6a with GrapheneOS. Runs great for years, except for one or two apps that require an "official" Android.
Anyway, I now need to get the battery replaced, because apparently they are dangerous and Google pays for the replacement. Unfortunately, the replacement process requires the stock android to be installed. Meaning, I would need to backup the whole phone, reinstall stock android, then restore everything - and hope the whole ordeal works out.
That makes no sense. If there is a recall program for safety, surely they have to accept whatever software is on there? It's not relevant to the hardware repair
I tried it to review some C++ code. It actually found minor bugs, but the signal to noise ratio is too high (maybe 10% of the found issues were real issues)
It's not unsubstantiated. The federalism is a well known expensive hindrace for any progress. Everyone doing their own shit also means everyone has to fight it out with everyone on how they work together. There are good reasons for this, but the price is also obvious.
Thinking the number of federal states is equivalent with an efficiency factor is utterly unsubstantiated. There may be a correlation (or not, I don't claim anything here), but `efficiency_gain == federal states before / federal states after` is pure fantasy.
Is it, though? What’s so different between Thuringia and Saxony that they both need separate administrations?
Why is it, that when you move between states, your tax office needs to print out your records, send them to your new state's office, only for some poor soul to type them into their system because each state uses a different system without any common exchange format? Make it make sense!
Yes it is a Milchmädchenrechnung. I do not want to argue whether fusing states makes sense or not. This isn't even a moral condemnation of the original poster. All I say is that the equation `efficiency_gain == federal states before / federal states after` is completely made up.
We will publish a comparison but I'm cautious as it can easily look like an attack over what others do and I feel strongly about not being hostile to other open-source projects :-)
Long story short: we provide multi-source/multi-destination/multi-storage (ie: backup S3 to disk, restore to SFTP), we have a nice UI, we reimplemented our own database over CAS allowing us to have a virtual filesystem + a ton of nice features on top of the snapshots, + an archive format of our own and other nice features.
All of this is in the free version, what's going to be paid is plugins to backup commercial services, enterprise features like multi-user support, ACLs, or compliance related features (ie: GDPR / sensitive data detection, ...), backup orchestration over a pool of machines, and more.
So you say we don't need OOP because you can use this half-baked (non type-safe) way of implementing your favorite OOP feature yourself in your favorite touring-complete language? While omitting the key concept of virtual functions.
"OOP" is a philosophy more than specific implementation details. I've programmed "object orientedly" in any number of languages, many of those with no object orientation helping syntax, like C, assembly, Forth (although that one's more malleable). It's always been about the mental model of your programming, anything else is syntax sugar.
All discussion about "your not doing true OOP because $REASON" arguments are useless, repetitive, and discouraging to exploration, discovery and learning.
I'm not sure where you got "we don't need" from, unless you consider any language feature to be unnecessary if there's a way to implement the concept without it. Which is not a very useful way of looking at language features! You can implement anything in assembly, that doesn't mean higher-level languages aren't needed.
I'm saying that OOP as a concept is simple enough that you can do the basics of it in pretty idiomatic and straightforward C, and all the other stuff that we associate with "OOP" is not really universal. And thus it's no surprise that discussions around OOP as a general concept tend to be vague and not very useful.
Why do you seem to feel that OOP defines a specific set of features, for instance virtual functions?
There are many different OOP styles out there. All one needs to do is to look at the languages that originated the concept, such as SIMULA and Smalltalk to see that they weren't channeling the exact same ideas.
reply