Git is an abysmal tool for many (most?) uses of it, but that unfortunately has become "standard". The sheer awfulness of git is witnessed by the amount of posts about it and little consensus on "best practices" (e.g., rebase vs merge).
So, I don't judge, but sympathize with people who just "delete the repo and start from scratch". Unintuitive, user-hostile tools call for heavy-handed solutions.
IME, most people are willing to learn something when they're shown the value for invested effort. That "delete the repo" is standard answer for fixing f*up, tells more about the tool than the people using it. (I.e. it requires disproportionately big investment of time for little value.)
I really don't agree with that. Git is a powerful tool with very few actual downsides, and the unwillingness of some developers to spend an hour learning how it works hurts them in the long-term.
It's like sticking to the text editing feature of your IDE because you can't be bothered to learn how it works. Sure, you _technically_ can do that, but you're losing on everything that makes an IDE useful and probably losing actual days or weeks worth of work because of that.
>the unwillingness of some developers to spend an hour learning how it works hurts them in the long-term
And that's the problem. Because every developer has spent an hour learning how it works by themselves but then each of them in completely different ways, from different sources, on different projects and workflows, some more correct than others, because there's not one single perfect ground truth way of using git in every situation, but git offers one million ways of shooting yourself in the foot once you land on the job, even after you think you learned git in that one hour.
And that IMHO is git's biggest problem: too powerful, too many features, too many ways of doing something, no sane defaults out of the box that everyone can just stick with and start working, too many config variables that you have to tinker with, etc. Case in point, just look at the endless debates in the comments here on what the correct git workflows are wand what the correct config variables are, nobody can agree on anything unanimously on what the right workflow of configs are everyone has their own diverging opinion.
Something being popular doesn't mean it's universally good everywhere and loved by everyone. Windows and Teams are also popular, almost every company uses them, that doesn't make them good. Diesel ICE cars are also highly popular in Europe even though they're much worse for our air quality and health. Do you see the issue with using popularity as an argument?
I've met many devs who hate git with a passion but they just have to use it because management said so and because evry other workplace now uses it, just like Teams and Windows. Not saying git is bad per se, just pointing out the crater of pitfalls it opens up.
Right but the world is bigger than corporate and yet I don't see anyone choosing anything else for their pet project large or small either. If Git was such a pain to use, wouldn't a lot of open source projects use something else? I know OpenBSD uses CSV, SQLite uses Fossil.. I can't honestly think of anything else non-Git right now that I use (I'm sure I'm missing some).
Years ago when private repositories were still a paid feature on GitHub, you could use Bitbucket, which had them for free, and offered Git and Mercurial. A few years later Bitbucket announced they were removing Mercurial support because "Mercurial usage on Bitbucket is steadily declining, and the percentage of new Bitbucket users choosing Mercurial has fallen to less than 1%".
>I don't see anyone choosing anything else for their pet project large or small either.
I also don't see anyone else choosing to breathing anything else than oxygen either. It's not like they have so many other options when the job market requires git and most coding tutorials also feature git and schools also use git, so the entire industry decided to use git despite other options existing.
Again, that doesn't mean git is bad or that is loved by everyone or that it's the best. Betamax also lost to VHS despite being technically superior. A lot of victories are won by the lesser product given enough inertia and being at the right time and the right place. Kind of how Windows and SAP got entrenched in the 90s. People and orgs were buying into it because everyone else was also using it so your only choice was to use it too no matter your own opinions on it. What were you gonna do? Piss against the wind and torpedo your hiring prospects by pigeonholing is some other "better" tool that nobody else uses?
I don't remember what VCS I used at my first job in the embedded industry but that one was hands down way better, easier and fool proof compared to git, with a nice GUI long before GIT GUI tools were even remotely good, it just didn't survive there long term because it costed a fuck tonne of money in licensing fees for the org. You can see where this is going, right? When it comes to bean counters, free beats paid every day regardless of most other arguments.
It's a nice piece of work! If you're interested, .NET's compiler has improved significantly since 3.1, in particular, around structs and pre-existing intrinsics (which are no longer needed to be used directly in most situations - pretty much all code prefers to use plain methods on VectorXXX<T> whenever possible). Also note the use of AggressiveOptimization attribute which disables tiered compilation and forces the static initialization checks your readme refers to - removing AO allows the compiler to bake statics directly into codegen through tiered compilation as upon reaching Tier 1 the value of such readonly statics will be known. For trivially constructed values, it is better to not store such in fields but rather construct them in place via e.g. expression-bodied properties like 'Vector128<byte> MASK => Vector128.Create((byte)0x80)`. I don't remember exactly whether this was introduced in Core 3.1 or 5, but today the use of `AggressiveOptimization` flag is discouraged unless you do need to bypass DynamicPGO.
You also noted the lack of ability to express numeric properties of T within generic context. This was indeed true, and this limitation was eventually addressed by generic math feature. There are INumber<T>, IBinaryInteger<T> and others to constrain the T on, which bring the comparison operators you were looking for.
In general, the knowledge around vectorized code has substantially improved within the community, and it is used quite more liberally nowadays by those who are aware of it.
Same here. Even though the "new" Dune has a lot of good VFX, I found it boring to watch, and that was only Part I. Before watching "new", I watched Lynch's to have something to compare to. I vastly prefer Lynch's Dune. It wasn't boring. He managed to cram the whole story in less than 2h30 and in (to me) coherent and understandable way. Although the movie did demand all of my attention and weaving of threads in my mind while watching. Lynch still wins, hands down, not the least because of the atmosphere.
> [Lynch] managed to cram the whole story in less than 2h30 and in (to me) coherent and understandable way.
I don't think you can make a coherent and understandable movie-Dune without using voice-over character thoughts. You need the footnotes.
It's a tricky device, because it's so easy to overuse, but Lynch mostly limits himself to where it's really needed. AND makes it play better with his trademark dreamlike mood.
Villeneuve's Dune is what you get without this -- I hope everyone read the books! Which on one hand, respect your audience. But on the other, most people haven't read the books.
PS: Wtf Lady Jessica in Villeneuve Pt I? She's got enough mettle to defy the Reverend Mother and bear a male child, but then all that strength disappears? I get it... setting up for contrast with Fremen Jessica, but hamfisted. :(
Several women have told me they thought Lady Jessica was a strong female character in Dune pt 1 after I complained that she was more abject/emotional than in the book. It felt like we had watched a different movie, but it sounds like I'm just wrong.
My wife hates when media codes feminine as weak, as in pointedly avoiding ever displaying a strong female character being upset. Her perception is that a lot of media (and usually pieces trying to be extra-feminist) communicate “women can be strong… if they get more masculine” rather than “feminine can be strong”.
That may be the kind of thing you’re seeing: not everyone may see “she privately struggles with difficult emotional experiences, and doesn’t bottle that up, but perseveres and kicks ass anyway” as weakness.
I broadly agree with that sentiment and have often struggled with that same concept in media. However in the books, Jessica not only heavily portrays lots of traits typically considered feminine, but her stoicism is one of them. Dune is a hard book to adapt; so much of the characterisation happens via internal monologues that are necessary to contextualise a lack of externalised reaction (everyone is putting on airs the whole time, basically.) But Jessica's Bene Gesserit emotional control is a clear parallel with the way women are often forced to sublimate emotion in every facet of society in order to be taken as seriously as their male counterparts. I re-read the first three books a few weeks ago and was absolutely dumbstruck by how Herbert's Bene Gesserit and Jessica as well could've been an artefact from this decade, not six decades ago. It's still a salient representation of gender roles half a century later. I liked the most recent Dune just fine, and I adore Rebecca Ferguson is just about everything, but this change to her character really bothered me for that.
"But on the other, most people haven't read the books."
People still enjoyed it, though.
I read the books after the movie and yes, there is so much more to the whole world, but apperently other people enjoyed it without further context and are eager for part 2 so apparently the movie worked for them as well.
> if people have an alternative to Google Search (very unlikely)
I started using Bing ~2 years ago. At the start, I used Google to get alternate results for about 1/4 of searches. Today? I drop to Google a couple of times a month, at most, usually when searching for something very ambiguous. I don't even live in the US.
So, I don't judge, but sympathize with people who just "delete the repo and start from scratch". Unintuitive, user-hostile tools call for heavy-handed solutions.
IME, most people are willing to learn something when they're shown the value for invested effort. That "delete the repo" is standard answer for fixing f*up, tells more about the tool than the people using it. (I.e. it requires disproportionately big investment of time for little value.)