Yeah I usually love Python but right now I’m working on a paid project where I need to deal with tasks that are critical to mostly work on first try. Now, if it would be a different matter if my code was just completely idiotic and still worked but Python doesn’t error even when there is obvious typo that any statically compiled language could’ve picked up on a breeze at compile time.

I am scared to even implement a better logging system in my program because sometimes I forget to sanitize the arguments and my program fucking crashes at runtime because I added a new fucking logging statement.

I so fucking wish I had static type checking right now. The libraries I am using doesn’t have types (via annotations) so unless I spend days fixing their shit, I will have to continue with these shitty runtime crashes for the shittiest small mistakes. I also can’t trust these annotations because even if they are “wrong” their code coul perfectly work fine and they could even ship the wrong types. I would have the burden of dealing with their shitty annotations if that happens.

It’s like learning Perl back in the day, then needing to learn use strict;

Edit: for any possible future readers, there is a sensible default that I hadn’t found yet during this work in progress. It’s just in a different struct: SaltString::generate().

I’d like it better if things were designed to work together better.

Right now, I’m working on a password storage system using the password_hash crate. You need to provide the salt yourself; this is already a bit silly for not providing a simple default that just gives you 16 bytes from a CSPRNG, but let’s continue.

You read the Salt struct documentation, and it talks about UUIDs being pretty good salts (well, using v4, anyway). So that pushes you toward the uuid crate, right? Except no. That crate doesn’t produce formats that the functions on the Salt struct will accept, like base64. So maybe the uuid_b64 crate will do it? I don’t think so, because that crate uses a URL-safe version of base64, and it’s not clear Salt will take that, either.

You’re now forced to use a cumbersome interface from the rand crate to make your salt. I’m still working through some of the “size not known at compile time” errors from this approach.

All of which would work better if there was a little thought into connecting the pieces together, or just providing a default salt generator that’s going to do the right thing 90% of the time.

Don’t get me started on how Actix hasn’t thought through how automated testing is supposed to work.

Well, that happens when you don’t override the toString method. Not worse than Java’s 0xf00cu

1 + 1 = “11”.

I may be on the wrong side of history but I can’t see what other role a car could get in the film industry except vehicle.

What about typecasting to a car?

Debatable.

For the Brits, it’s a Vauxhall Corsa.

Look at mister “Sometimes I write programs that have more than a single niche function” over here

This is a post about growing disappointment with Python

The WTF case isn’t allowed because it would allow modification of the const. From https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/implicit_conversion

int main() { const char c = ‘c’; char* pc; char** ppc = &pc; const char** pcc = ppc; // Error: not the same as cv-unqualified char**, no implicit conversion. *pcc = &c; *pc = ‘C’; // If the erroneous assignment above is allowed, the const object “c” may be modified. }

Please stop, I have CPTSD.

Did you a word?