I think that's probably unlikely given the long list of universities using it[0].
It's an educational tool for formal propositional logic which hasn't really changed much on 100 years, so probably not a lot of updates are required unless there are big new updates to Haskell itself.
I don't know if you can point to a single feature, a lot of what makes a language successful is around context and placement (javascript being a great example of this).
I think there's a few key features for python that have definitely been a big help for it:
It's highly dynamic meaning you can get running with it before understanding every detail (no compile step, no static typing etc).
It may not be the best at everything, but is a decent choice for most things, making a good generic intro language for programming.
It has good interop with low level languages - this is a big deal for data science where a less technical (from a CS perspective) user still needs the performance of a language like C/Fortran/Rust/etc. Python's pattern of "use python as a high level api for libraries in those other languages" (as in numpy, pandas, polars, pytorch etc).
That last one has been a big deal recently, python has become the de-facto language for data science as a result of this.
Most of the languages on the list have not been maintained in decades with many being for functionally extinct if not completely extinct systems. It is not really a list meant to guide you to a language to use, it is more about historical/academic interest.
Source here for anyone interested[0]. From memory, Ruff was its own thing, (I think named after the bird?) since then they've tried to give projects short letter combinations for consistency and ease of typing (uv, ty, pyx)
And I still hate github actions! Aside from anything else, they have one major flaw, which is there is no good development/test loop for writing them.
If you write most of your CICD in some kind of script, then you can run it locally, and do some basic checks around environment etc before deploying.
If you write most of your CICD in github actions or any alternative, you will be doomed to push 100 commits with messages like "maybe be?", "hmmm. . ." before eventually squashing them all down when it turns out several hours later that you mispelt an environment variable.
top tip: make a repo in your org for pushing all these nonsense changes to, test out your workflows with a dummy package being published to the repo, work out all the weird edge cases/underdocumented features of Actions
once you're done, make the actual changes in your real repo. I call the test repo 'pincushion'
We maintain an internal service that hosts two endpoints; /random-cat-picture (random >512KB image + UUID + text timestamp to evade caching) and /api/v1/generic.json which allows developers and platform folks to test out new ideas from commit to deploy behind a load balancer in an end-to-end fashion, it has saved countless headaches over the years.
That's true, but as a Waterfox user, I'm not worried!
If firefox really completely fails, and nobody is able to continue the open source project, I'll just find a new browser. That's not a huge hassle- Waterfox does what I need in the here and now, that's my only criterion.
Yes, I agree. I suppose when I said "I'm not worried" - I meant in the context of "it doesn't put me off using Waterfox". I am worried from an overall software ecosystem point of view.
I guess that wouldn't really "open source" in the traditional sense, but that's clearly a tangent.
Personally, I'd love a paid for high quality browser that serves me rather than sneakily trying to get me to look at ads.
I think the challenge is that a browser is an incredibly difficult and large thing to build and maintain. So there aren't many wholly new browsers in existence, and therefore not very many business models being tried out.
Full agreement that I'd pay for such a thing- I have a browser and a terminal open non-stop during my workday. It's an important tool and I'd easily pay for a better offering if that was an option.
Ooh I like this! I love Hacker news and Lobsters but they're both very US centric, seem great to have a European one.
UI is very nice and simple, one tiny bit of feedback is that a 'guidelines' page would be worthwhile, especially while it's new! I thought I'd post my own project on the site - sometimes that's a little bit of a no-no though, and I couldn't find any guidelines to steer me towards what types of things to share, etc.
Edit: Tiny extra feedback, is upvoting something immediately changes the rankings in the browser. It's pretty impressive speedwise, but especially if you're a couple pages in, you can bump something off of the page you're on which makes it a little weird to do something like 'upvote article and then check the comments'.
Thanks for the feedback and posting, I appreciate it!
I'm definitely going through the comments I've had later and will take everything onboard. Guidelines is a great idea - for now it's basically "HN guidelines but Euro-centric content please" but I should definitely write that down.
I took it to be along the lines of an "easier to work with" type motivation, rather than reducing package sizes.
reply