Yup, it’s a fork of KHTML, much like Blink is a fork of Webkit.
One thing that WebKit does better than other browsers on OSX is hooking into the native rendering APIs. That’s something that Firefox does a shoddy job at.
Hi, one of the implementors here... Yes, WSL is an option, and I believe Please works just fine in it. Right now we don't have any CI etc set up so we can't stand behind it and say "this works", but it works in WSL as most Linux things do.
We wanted something like Blaze (Google's system); at the time we were using Buck which didn't satisfy us (e.g. only one output per genrule, no directories; and it was more or less impossible to write first-class support for a new language without modifying the core system). Subsequently Bazel got released but we still find that a bit lacking in some areas; e.g. the CLI, the JVM reliance and some of Starlark (e.g. it maintains Python 2 syntax compatibility so can't have type annotations).
We'd also tried Gradle previously but that was pretty awful for anything non-Java which made it a non-starter.
To be clear, I'm one of the original implementors, although I imagine that was obvious already...
For most purposes, Bazel dependency on Java is an implementation detail (users don't need to install a JVM), although you might notice it if you need to bootstrap Bazel.
(I co-designed Starlark and I used to work on Bazel)
I’m not sure if the feature was added after you started building Please but Buck does support multiple outputs from a genrule now. It’s kind of hacky though; you write a genrule that produces a directory containing said multiple outputs, and then you can write rules to extract the subcomponents. (I don’t know why I feel compelled to point this out. I worked on Buck for about a year, several years back. )
At first this wasn't a singular clear answer I was hoping for, but the many points being made here make it clear that it's a complex area and there's room for another advanced/high-perf build system to cover a broader range of usage.
In that case, you can stitch both Python and Go builds together in the same interface, and then tie them into further actions (e.g. Docker builds, Kubernetes), again using the same interface. Neither setuptools nor go build are particularly helpful to that goal.
(I'm one of the original developers, but these days do less maintaining of it than tatskaari does)
Lost world? Not so. Look a little harder. Try visiting the Department of Coffee and Social Affairs, Fernandez and Wells, Speakeasy, or one of many other boutique coffee shops serving excellent coffee. Okay, they're outnumbered by Starbucks, Nero and Costa, but that doesn't mean they're not there.
Modern day coffee shops are not really the same though.
Apparently there was a parallel to the whole "people sitting on their laptops" issue way back in those days. Originally, there were long benches and people would be forced to sit together and drink and chat, but there was a pressure for the more snobby patrons to sit alone or apart and later individual tables were added.
The issue isn't the coffee shops. It's people. After college, it becomes socially unacceptable to initiate conversation with a person you don't know. People are not only stratified vertically by socioeconomic status, but horizontally by industry- and subculture-specific senses of superiority (academics vs. "techies" vs. bankers).
A coffee house would have to work at it to recreate the old dynamic: hold board game tournaments, have common viewing of intelligent television (when it's on, which is rarely). But that would conflict with the business goal (except in college towns) of getting people in and out reasonably quickly so you can afford rent on the space. The truth is that most people don't want to meet new people. They want to work on their laptops and talk to people they already know.
"After college, it becomes socially unacceptable to initiate conversation with a person you don't know."
I don't think this is actually true. My girlfriend will chat up basically anyone she meets - she'll talk to the guy making her burrito in Spanish, crack jokes with the checkout cashier, introduce my slam-poet friend to her CFO's teenage daughter who wants to get involved in the arts scene, cold-call alumni from her school asking for career advice, respond to cold-calls from people asking for career advice, and randomly strike up a conversation with a stranger on a street corner. Occasionally it leads to some awkwardness, like on Halloween when she asked the guy behind us if he was Sheldon Cooper for Halloween (he wasn't wearing a costume). But most people are very glad to be treated like a human being and talked to directly.
I think that what happens is there's a selection effect at work. People don't try to maintain a conversation with other people who don't want to be talked to - that's rude. And so if you believe that most people don't want to be talked to, you'll give off "I don't intend to talk" signals, which will ensure that most people don't try to talk to you.
My last girlfriend was like that. Two things: 1) she was very attractive; 2) she was outrageously gregarious.
I can accomplish a fractional amount of her socialization if I happen to be feeling supremely gregarious (not very often), but for the more averagely social human being, it can be challenging to initiate conversation with people you don't know. I do think the built environments of the adult, professional world are less conducive for this.
On this point though, I always marvel at the park picnic scene: often you can find very large groups of ethnic or seemingly blue collar people holding court at the picnic tables at parks. My own personal demographic isn't as frequently represented in that scene. Go ahead, guess.
My wife is like this. We have an agreement where she goes to more of the children's birthday parties. She loves to socialize with strangers, me not so much.
Having worked at a software company whose internal date format was indeed based on days as the base unit, I suggest that this is an extremely bad idea. 0.75 may be 6pm, but what is 7pm? 0.7916666666666666 is as close as computers will generally come, but of course it's lossy; try adding increments of an hour and sooner or later you've got an irritating rounding issue.
This is solvable using arbitrary-precision decimal libraries, but relying on one of those for just dealing with general time stuff is a Bad Idea.
Sure, but trying to persuade billions of people to switch to a new system with unclear benefits and no backwards compatibility is not a recipe for success.
No, the same restrictions apply to class as to struct.
The most relevant difference in C++ is that the compiler can reorder data members that are in different visibility specifications (public, protected, private) but not within one of those blocks, to maintain compatibility with C.
Well you only have guaranteed compatibility with C if a class is standard-layout, which requires that all members have the same access control (public, protected, private). So if there is any rule in C++ that mandates ordering within a "block" when there are multiple such "blocks", it's not for compatibility with C.
Maybe because the people who bought it early on have already played it and derived significant value from it? It doesn't seem right to me that they get all their money back when presumably most of them weren't playing it any more.
I don't agree with the kind of always-on DRM that's led to this, but I don't think full refunds for everyone is a reasonable solution either.
I do live in London, and while it's expensive, I can't see how you could need £100k annually simply for accommodation. Unless you have a very large family to support too?
