Probably this.
Can you explain what are denotational semantics and operational semantics? I tried reading the wikipedia article but I don't get it.
Microservice from the start may be a lot of overhead, but it should at least be made with that scalability in mind. In practice to me, that just means simple things like make sure you can configure it via environment vars, run it out of docker compose or something because you need to be able install it on all your dev systems and your prod server. That basic setup will let you scale if/when you need to, and doesn't add anything extra when planned from the start.
Allocating infrastructure on a cloud service with auto scaling is the hard part imo. But making the app support the environment from the start isn't as hard.
as soon as you pay for 12 consecutive months, you will receive this perpetual fallback license providing you with access to the exact product version for when your 12 consecutive months subscription started.
So at most your software will be 1 year old.
AWS has so much documentation, and yet it never has what I'm looking for ☠️
In our testing, the VPN always continued to report as connected, and the kill switch was never engaged to drop our VPN connection.
This is the only place they mention kill switch. I feel like it needs a slight clarification on whether it was enabled and didn't work, or if was just disabled and therefore not "engaged".
This is what I was thinking. For a first iteration to get out the door immediately it could just be windows with a "game browser" that launches full screen when you turn it on 😂
No they're not. And the tech literate people that will see that they can disable this protection and continue as normal.
Microsoft doesn't always do good things, but I think this is fine. If you open firefox it'll ask you if you want to set your default browser, and it won't regedit for you. It will open up the proper windows menu that lets you set firefox as the default.
Not letting malware change your settings by default is a GOOD thing. It is also a good thing that advanced users can disable the feature.
The only bad thing about the story is the lack of transparency. Having to find out about it by breaking tools is bad. It would be better if they had a changelog for these updates that say what they do so admins can see if their tools will be affected.
You're right, I'm not representing the merge correctly. I was thinking of having multiple merges because for a long running patch branch you might merge main into the patch branch several times before merging the patch branch into main.
I'm so used to rebasing I forgot there's tools that correctly show all the branching and merges and things.
Idk, I just like rebase's behavior over merge.
I like flutter's design where you do your markup and styling as code, and then it gets rendered via opengl. So you get that native performance without having to deal with the whole browser stack.
I don't like how almost all software these days is just web apps masquerading as native apps, but they're just so damn easy to write compared to anything else.
It probably won't get rid of js's dominance, but it'll give people options. I already see some front end python and rust frameworks thanks to wasm. But for some reason I really don't like the idea of writing html / css in my rust. But I don't like the idea of html / css in my rust.
I feel the opposite, but for similar logic? Merge is the one that is cluttered up with other merges.
With rebase you get A->B->C for the main branch, and D->E->F for the patch branch, and when submitting to main you get a nice A->B->C->D->E->F and you can find your faulty commit in the D->E->F section.
For merge you end up with this nonsense of mixed commits and merge commits like A->D->B->B'->E->F->C->C' where the ones with the apostrophe are merge commits. And worse, in a git lot there is no clear "D E F" so you don't actually know if A, D or B came from the feature branch, you just know a branch was merged at commit B'. You'd have to try to demangle it by looking at authors and dates.
The final code ought to look the same, but now if you're debugging you can't separate the feature patch from the main path code to see which part was at fault. I always rebase because it's equivalent to checking out the latest changes and re-branching so I'm never behind and the patch is always a unique set of commits.
For real, I might get it to try it out. I'm learning about it from this post.