WASM made huge strides last year. You can run entire operating systems inside a WASM hypervisor now, and lots of packaging and transpiling projects came of age last year.
A fad? No, definitely not. TypeScript brings features (and structure) that will /should probably make their way into JS.
It's sort of like asking, "does SASS replace CSS" or "is liquid the next HTML?" They're just implementations of features FE developers want in the core spec of JS, CSS, and HTML.
that will /should probably make their way into JS.
Not really, IMHO. The main advantage of TS is that it will help you catch errors without having to run a particular piece of code - i.e. you won't have to move to the third page of some multi-page form to discover a particular bug. In other words, it helps you catch bugs before your code even reaches your browser, so it doesn't bring you much to have them in the browser.
(There isa proposal to allow running TS in the browser, which would be nice, but you'd still run a type checker separately to actually catch the bugs.)
The boring answer: the boring shit pays the bills. If you want to apply your programming chops to science then academia is your home
UBI often touted as an answer to this kind of thing though, breaking capitalism through removing cheap labour will have untold societal shifts, including an uptick in creative thought and independent research. Beware though: most research today costs way more than you think to generate meaningful breakthroughs
Forget everything you hear about OOP and just view it as a way to improve code readability. Just rewrite something convoluted with a class and you'll se what they're good for. Once you've got over the mental blockade, it'll all make more sense.
To add to this, there are kinda two main use cases for OOP. One is simply organizing your code by having a bunch of operations that could be performed on the same data be expressed as an object with different functions you could apply.
The other use case is when you have two different data types where it makes sense to perform the same operation but with slight differences in behavior.
For example, if you have a “real number” data type and a “complex number” data type, you could write classes for these data types that support basic arithmetic operations defined by a “numeric” superclass, and then write a matrix class that works for either data type automatically.
There's a vast difference in approach between software that uses documents and software that uses a database. A document based approach tends to result in work that lasts a long time. A database approach tends to have more features.
It's tempting to chase those features, but in my opinion it's a mistake.
Memory safe languages tend to be easier to use and to learn especially at lower skill levels with languages like Python and JavaScript. It's a nice thought, but the White House encouraging memory safety seems like a relatively insignificant push. It's the weight of legacy code and established solutions that will hold us back for a long time.
Rust does memory-safety in the most manual way possible, by requiring the programmer prove to the compiler that the code is memory-safe. This allows memory-safety with no runtime overhead, but makes the language comparatively difficult to learn and use.
Garbage-collected compiled languages — including Java, Go, Kotlin, Haskell, or Common Lisp — can provide memory-safety while putting the extra work on the runtime rather than on the programmer. This can impose a small performance penalty but typically makes for a language that's much easier on the programmer.
And, of course, in many cases the raw performance of a native-code compiled language is not necessary, and a bytecode interpreter like Python is just fine.
Rust does memory-safety in the most manual way possible
The most manual way is what C does, which is requiring the programmer to check memory safety by themselves.😛
Also will say that outside of some corner cases, Rust is really not that harder than Java or Python. Even in the relatively rare cases that you run into lifetimes, you can usually clone your data (not ideal for performance usually but hey its what the GC language would often do anyway). And reliability is far better in Rust as well so you save a lot of time debugging. Compiles = it works most of the time.
Leaders in Industry Support White House Call to Address Root Cause of Many of the Worst Cyber Attacks
And it's called C/C++. It's gotten so bad that even the friggin' white house has to make a press release about it. Think about it, the place where that majority barely even understand the difference between a file browser and a web browser is telling you to stop using C/C++. Hell, even the creator and maintainers of the language don't know how to make it memory safe. If that isn't a wake up call, then nothing ever will be.
And this isn't the first call! The IEEE also says more clearly: GTFO C/C++.
If you want memory-safe, don't write C/C++. Trying to get that shit memory-safe is a hassle and a half. You're better off learning a language that isn't full of foot-guns, gotchas, and undefined behavior.
First write it in Go, which will likely be faster unless you are quite familiar with Rust. After that, you can port some/all of it to Rust if you wish.
Go is plenty fast for most things, and it is fairly simple. Rust is more interesting from a language geek perspective. I'd decide based on which of those appeals to you. I don't see good reason to combine them, though.
Programming
Newest
This magazine is not receiving updates (last activity 6 day(s) ago). Subscribe to start receiving updates.