Maybe you could look at using some AI assistance to provide some real 'useful' feedback to the OP about what made you lose interest, as your false confidence in some opaque 'AI-detection' heuristic is lazy and only harms individuals who are trying to find effective ways to share information.
The AI tells are quite literally what made me lose interest. They help me filter out dozens of AI slop posts daily so I'll be keeping them thanks. They're lazy by design. You can generate a good looking post in 30s, I can't afford to spend 5 mins reading each one on its merits.
You have to tell musl to use mmap instead of brk. You're right that it doesn't work in all cases but as long as you switch TLS on calls (and callbacks), at least with a project the size of Godot, you can approach a workable solution.
If only there was an easy way to fund all the Open Source programs you like and use, so the projects who struggle with it, can put more focus into design.
Seems like a win-win, take my money solution, for some reason the market (and I guess that means investors) are not pursuing this as a consumer service?
The problem with configuration formats, is not syntax, or abstraction, it's the lack of consistent language server integration, it's problem when I can't lookup the definition for a key, the expected type, or quickly jump to definitions that clearly show which keys are available to configure.
To be frank, the clear problem with configuration format is that people have configurations so complex they probably should use something else.
Example: We are programming a backend for a blog. If we were to not use templates, but instead try to get that functionality via the webservice configuration we would have to "invent" some format that gives us the flexibility of templates within let's say a YAML file.
Needless to say that would be a horrible idea. Maybe I am being naive here, but I have yet to be convinced of the fact that it is really configuration formats that are the problem and not what people try to abuse them for. I have yet to work on a project where TOML wasn't enough for actual configuration.
Usually when I need something more complex than what can be done with TOML it is a sign that this needs to be handled differently. Via templates or with a database or making a special DSL-like script file. E.g. if you're using python nothing (except security considerations) stops you from allowing users to use a python file for configuration. If your configuration needs are really that complex, why not use a real programming language for it?
Two examples of complex user facing configurations I can think of are pretty trivial to implement:
- Decision tree, where you only need comparison operators. The leaves are a specified list of actions.
- actions list with macros (variables). You can be fancy and add some conventions for arrays.
Anything more that that should just be a programming language. And if the relationship is adversarial (saas), you should really think hard about needing something that complex.
Neither Go nor Rust define an ABI for themselves. They can use dynamically linked C code just fine but cannot link their own language with all (or even a reasonably broad subset) of its own features. This is not as bad in Rust, where you can fall back to the unsafe C ABI while still having safe Rust on either side, whereas Go cannot have two instances of its runtime active in the same process.
Compare this situation with Java/JVM or C#/.NET, both of which define their own ABIs albeit not for native machine code, or especially Swift, which defines its own native-code ABI.
Only Linux, BSD and other operating systems that are entirely Open Source.
Even Windows has scary warnings now that pop up unless you pay several hundred dollars a year plus you have to go through a completely unreasonable process (that often requires being shipped a physical USB device) just to sign your application.
