• 6 Posts
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Jun 24, 2020


Probably putting hydrogen into the regular gas storage systems and using that would be a solution.

It’s not possible because dihydrogen molecul are much thiner than methane or similar gas. This means that conventionnal gas infrastructure will leak dihydrogen.

I really like Amos’ style of writting. This is an introduction to Rust, but instead of using the classical “teacher” tone of voice, this blog post follow the thought process of someone trying to rewrite something in Rust while discovering the language. I hope you would enjoy it too!

Rust is a new language that already has good textbooks. But sometimes its textbooks are difficult because they are for native English speakers. Many companies and people now learn Rust, and could learn faster with a book that has easy English. This textbook is for these companies and people to lea…

The Next Steps for Single Ownership and RAII

This post describe an alternative to C++'s ananymous destructor by using multiples named destructors. If a type have named destructor, then not calling one when an object ends his life is a compile error. This post explore what this approach gives us. At the end of the article, a comparison to the R…

I found the article really interesting, but I’m not sure that argdown is the solution. Argdown seems really nice to stucture summary comment, but not the discussion itself. I think it’s an excellant starting point which should be explored deeper.

Thanks to the work of Nicholas Nethercote and Alex Crichton, there have been some recent improvements that reduce the size of compiled libraries, and improves the compile-time performance, particularly when using LTO. This post dives into some of the details of what changed, and an estimation of the…

It’s an amazing serie. I can’t wait the next one!

I think that the issue is OOP itself. Having 1-3 lines in a functionnal language (or anything that can use functional idioms) is both idiomatic, more readable and maitainable.

When I read clean code (about 2 years ago), I read it with the point of view of a C++ programmer. I read the advices and skept the code (since java didn’t interest me that much) and I filtered the advices that I though didn’t applied to C++. For this very reason, I found the book relatively good (since I focused only on the good part).

I found this article absolutely on point. I also finally understand why I really don’t like uncle bob’s conferences since I don’t skim or filter them partially but watch the whole content.

Nonetheless, I don’t regret that I read clean code, mostly because it forced me to articulate my thoughts on what I liked/disliked about it. I wouldn’t recommend it though.

Great read. That’s aneamazing and well written story.

Good initiative!