> be aware that there are too many bad game engines. In Rust land, where I am, there are three failed renderers, one unfinished one, and the one inside the Bevy engine. Those are the major projects.
Elastic tabspots everywhere would be ideal. But in the real world I think 'tabs to indent, spaces to align' is the superior way, as every dumb text editor will support it.
If you're good at SQL, or SQL-like languages like Linq, it might be more efficient precisely writing a reasonably complex query than trying to explain it in detail to an AI.
> Careful not to mix unions with sum types, though. The key distinction is that the latter are disjunct sets, even if you "sum" together the same type twice, you can always tell which "way" you went.
This is a really good point. I'd love to be able to have a sum type of two strings ("escaped" and "unescaped"); or any two kinds of the same type really, to model two kinds of the same type where one has already passed some sort of validation and the other one hasn't.
Edit to add: I figure what I want is for enums to be extended such that different branches are able to carry different properties.
Edit again (I should learn to think things through before posting. sorry): I suppose it can be faked using a union of different wrapper types, and in fact it might be the best way to do it so then methods can take just one of the types in arguments and maybe even provide different overloads.
> The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE).
>
> Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.
So maybe the text area in your IDE becomes read-only. Even when not actively debugging, you still need to read code and efficiently browse through it as you review it. Because you always review code, don't you? Don't you??
For what it's worth, it's what caught my attention. I wouldn't have found it so captivating if it had only said "Fixing Google Nano Banana Pixel Art". To be clear, it's not because of Rust in particular. It would have been the same if it said "with C#", or "with Python", or even just "programmatically". And on that note: I feel disappointed. I thought I would be reading about the development process, and not just a product presentation.