<< while we were coding Xous, a thing called `const generic` was introduced. Before this, Rust had no native ability to deal with arrays bigger than 32 elements! >>

Wat.

That's... that's gotta be a mistake, right.......? I'm reading that sentence wrong....?

icoUldntagReeMoreimeaNalltHatmaLarkeyaBoutreadAbiltyaNdaLlthatishUgelyoVerratEdifyOuaSkmEiFpeOplearEntwilLingtOdOtHewoRktolEarnsoMetHingdOtHeyeVendeseRvetouSeiTriTesoFpaSsaGeftWamiRiteaFteraLltHegUyoNlywRoteaNopeRatinGsyStemiNiTwHatanEwbwHatdOeshEknOw

;P

You are giving two examples, but you missed the elefant in the room:

const result = foo?.bar?.baz() || {};

@aral

I think @aral used a very bad syntax to convey something using beautiful concepts.

Though I must admit that I also could not find the beautiful concepts because I did not understand the syntax.

Which I think is his point.

Syntax matters.

I would not go and claim that Javascript is really *good*. It is what you get when you mix horrible concepts with enough syntactic sugar to paper over it that it appears nice until you dig a finger deep.

Therefore it is the perfect example that syntax matters, because the concepts of JS are deeply unsettling (since they were never really designed, but tacked on with the requirement “every page must keep working with all its workarounds”).

For the "not finished" part, there is a great article from the perspective of Python: drewdevault.com/2019/11/26/Avo…

I still have some essential projects that I have not yet finished converting to Python 3. Because when you have three layers of string-byte-mangling, that actually is hard.