Well they still have runtimes, but yes they can be pretty minimal.

You're still shipping a load of libraries that come for free with JS though, e.g. with Rust WASM string formatting and unicode support always ends up being annoyingly huge, and that's built in to JS engines. There's also collections (Map, Set), etc.

There's a "proper" version of this hack called early oom. I haven't used it though and now that I look at it it seems like it uses the same completely broken "guess which process to kill, who cares if it's init" system that the normal oom killer uses so your solution sounds better.

Is it so hard to just pause the system and ask the user which app to kill?

I don't think so - Javascript doesn't have to ship its language runtime so it will always have a size advantage.

Interesting, so that's sort of customising the image somehow? Does it use an overlay FS or something?

Hmmm I guess this kind of makes sense - most distros push Gnome above KDE (probably because it doesn't look like this - where's Tantacrul when you need him?). On the other hand, there's already Kubuntu...

I'm a bit skeptical about immutable distros too. What if I want to install a package that isn't already installed and isn't available as a Flatpak/Snap? Seems like it's going to run in similar issues to everything else that tries to wade upstream against the bad decisions of the existing Linux packaging zeitgeist, e.g. how Nix has to install everything in one root-owned directory because nobody cares about portable installation.

That's cool, but in my experience if you get to the OOM killer then 80% of the time it's too late and your system is basically dead. My laptop hard reboots most of the time when this happens.

Hopefully it works with the early-OOM hacks.

I have 32 GB but it's not enough. Try opening 8 instances of VSCode, Firefox and Chrome with a few dozen tabs. Unfortunately my laptop doesn't support 64 GB of RAM.

Why would you use the is operator like that?

Why would you add two arrays like that?

Do you not use containers when you deploy

No because I am not using Python to make a web app. That's not the only thing people write you know...

JavaScript is so bad you’ve resorted to using a whole other language: Typescript

Well yeah. Typescript isn't really a new language. It's just type annotations for JavaScript (except for enums; long story). But yes JavaScript is pretty bad without Typescript.

But Typescript isn't a cop-out like Docker is.

But the language it’s built on top of it is extremely warty. Maybe we agree on that.

Yeah definitely. You need to ban the warts but Typescript & ESLint do a pretty good job of that.

I mean I would still much rather write Dart or Rust but if I had to pick between Typescript and Python there's absolutely no way I'd pick Python (unless it was for AI).

Well, indeed. Unfortunately there are still a fair number of them. The situation is definitely improving at least.

In fairness that approach hasn't really worked in other languages. It was so unpopular in C++ that they actually removed the feature, which is almost unheard of. Java supports it too but it's pretty rarely used in my experience. The only place I've seen it used is in Android. It's unpopular enough there that Kotlin doesn't support it.

I have never seen a single C++ codebase do that. It helps but it's not a practical full solution.

I dunno if you're being deliberately obtuse, but just in case you really did miss his point: the fact that type hints are optional (and not especially popular) means many libraries don't have them. It's much more painful to use a library without type hints because you lose all of their many benefits.

This obviously isn't a problem in languages that require static types (Go, Rust, Java, etc..) and it isn't a problem with Typescript because static types are far more popular in JavaScript/Typescript land so it's fairly rare to run into a library that doesn't have them.

And yeah you can just not use the library at all but that's just ignoring the problem.

A sane language, you say.

Yes:

Operator '+' cannot be applied to types 'number[]' and 'number[]'.

We're talking about Typescript here. Also I did say that it has some big warts, but you can mostly avoid them with ESLint (and Typescript of course).

Let's not pretend Python doesn't have similar warts:

>>> x = -5
>>> y = -5
>>> x is y
True
>>> x = -6
>>> y = -6
>>> x is y
False
>>> x = -6; y = -6; x is y
True

>>> isinstance(False, int)
True

>>> [f() for f in [lambda: i for i in range(10)]]
[9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9]

There's a whole very long list here. Don't get be wrong, Python does a decent job of not being crazy. But so does Typescript+ESLint.

I’ve worked professionally in python for several years and I don’t think it’s ever caused a serious problem. Everything’s in docker so you don’t even use venv.

"It's so bad I have resorted to using Docker whenever I use Python."

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.

Typescript is far nicer than Python though. Well I will give Python one point: arbitrary precision integers was absolutely the right decision. Dealing with u64s in Typescript is a right pain.

But apart from that it's difficult to see a single point on which Python is clearly better than Typescript:

• Static typing. Pyright is great but it's entirely optional and rarely used. Typescript obviously wins here.
• Tooling. Deno is fantastic but even if we regress to Node/NPM it's still a million miles better than the absolute dog shit pile of vomit that is Pip & venv. Sorry Python but admit your flaws. uv is a shining beacon of light here but I have little hope that the upstream Python devs will recognise that they need to immediately ditch pip in favour of officially endorsing uv. No. They'll keep it on the sidelines until the uv devs run out of hope and money and give up.
• Performance. Well I don't need to say more.
• Language sanity. They're pretty on par here I think - both so-so. JavaScript has big warts (the whole prototype system was clearly a dumb idea) but you can easily avoid them, especially with ESLint. But Python has equally but warts that Pylint will tell you about, e.g. having to tediously specify the encoding for every file access.
• Libraries & ecosystem. Again I would say there's no much in it. You'd obviously be insane to use Python for anything web related (unless it's for Django which is admittedly decent). On the other hand Python clearly dominates in AI, at least if you don't care about actually deploying anything.

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.