lysdexic

(...) rust, since js is much higher level. you should be comparing it with c, c++, zig, maybe nim, etc

Obvious troll.

I develop professionally in C and C++. No they aren’t. At all. C and C++ are so loaded with footguns it’s a surprise people can get anything done in them without triggering UB.

The way you parrot undefined behavior is a telltale sign you do not work with either C or C++. If you had any cursory first-hand professional experience with either one of those languages, you'd understand what UB is, why writing your code by laying unfounded expectations on UB is actually either a bug or design error on your behalf, you'd know that for a decade or so there are tooling that throws warnings and errors if you inadvertently use it, and above all UB only means frameworks are ultimately responsible to specify the behavior that is left purposely undefined.

If your primary exposure to programming is only typescript or JavaScript maybe you shouldn’t be jumping straight into something like rust.

That completely contradicts any claim that Rust is user-friendly and provides a decent user experience.

Probably was closed

What do you mean "probably was closed"?

A comment on the YouTube video makes a good point that we already have a better word for the concept of dealing with multiple things at once: multitasking.

I don't think that's a good comment at all. In fact, it ignores fundamental traits that separate both concepts. For example, the concept of multitasking is tied to single-threaded task switching whereas concurrency has a much broader meaning, which covers multi threaded and multiprocess execution of many tasks that may or may not yield or be assigned to different cores, processors, or even nodes.

Meaning, concurrency has a much broader meaning that goes well beyond "doing many things at once". Such as parallelism and asynchronous programming.

Do we really need a video about this in 2024? Shouldn’t this be already a core part of our education as software engineers?

I'm not sure what point you tried to make.

Even if you believe some concept should be a core part of the education of every single software engineer who ever lived, I'm yet to meet a single engineer who had an encyclopedic knowledge of each and every single topic covered as a core part of their education. In fact, every single engineer I ever met only retained a small subset of their whole curriculum.

So exactly what is your expectation?

This is pure junior energy. Or trolling, I honestly can’t tell.

OP makes a valid point, and a strong one to boot.

Other than name calling, do you have anything to add?

You do actually understand that languages that aren’t JavaScript don’t have built in async runtimes and they need to be provided by a library, right?

How do you explain C#?

good: Add foo interface.

Another commit style is summarizing what a commit does. In this case it would be someting like:

Adds foo interface.

I think this style is more in line with auditing code.

That's weird. I noticed the post being marked as a dupe from the same community but I only saw one entry.

I’m not a fan of CDK as it seems to just introduce more cognitive load for developers and ops (as soon as something goes wrong / gets difficult), often long after the original authors have moved onto new shinier projects.

I don't think so. If anything, CDK contributes to not only simplify deployments of complex web applications but it also makes said deployments testable and verifiable. Also, features such as constructs and basic modularization contribute to simplify and clarify any deployment. I don't know of any IaC tool that handles this better than CDK, frankly.

The article makes some interesting points, but the author shows a complete detachment from reality by advocating against CloudFormation and CDK with simplistic and twisted logic (if any).

An interesting read in spite of this.