That’s an awfully persnickety correction attempt for someone that replaced an opening capital letter and period with parentheses. That’s far more grammatically lax than using slang.
Americans and especially corporate culture America likes to do this all the time:
The ask instead of request is an example. I just politely use the words I prefer when that happens.
Our new promotes for this year.
etc.
I read from a linguistic source that it's a feature of English and the Brits do it as well.
There are plenty of alternatives for git hosting. The last thing which needs to be migrated before we get an exodus off this vibe coded monstrosity is reputation (i.e. github stars) which are inherently sticky.
I don't think GitHub stars are what makes GitHub sticky. Having a single UI / account and being able to jump between work projects, private projects and random open source projects where I want to open a quick issue or submit a PR is much more sticky.
The reason why GitHub is sticky was exactly this. It’s easy to fork, make a change, and submit a PR to another project. It’s the same interface for your code vs another person’s. It’s a simple, consistent interface to submit an issue.
You can argue that the lack of diversity in infrastructure is bad, and I wouldn’t disagree. I think we should have more projects to explore better ways of working. But, the tradeoff is that when you have a centralized system, like GitHub, you also have less friction. The learning curve is small when everything uses the same tools.
Git doesn't even need to be "hosted" anywhere. That's the point of it being distributed. What needs to be hosted somewhere are all the barnacles (like issue tracking, code reviewing, CI, and so on) that have grown out around git, that people and businesses have become dependent on.
It doesn't have to be. But without a hosted "source of truth", it's kinda hard to actually distribute it, and have a way to accept pull/merge requests/patches.
Which is why they cleverly moved the central story of a software change from the commit to the PR. Commits migrate automatically with the repo. But migrating PR descriptions and comments takes engineering effort.
Rhetorically, why can't folks add the feature of PRs to Git? Git is fundamentally just a graph manipulation engine and data structure. It would just be another object type, in a layer which sits above the normal commit graph. Obviously there is no "just make X" in software, but this feels reasonably achievable, and would have tremendous benefit for the cost.
some investors use stars (and star growth velocity) to determine which projects they invest or don't invest in. (not saying it's good or bad - just saying it's a real thing.)
Email can't really change much. The protocol is too old.
It would be better if we came up with new protocols that solve the email messaging problems and then gradually wean ourselves off email rather than trying to "fix" email.
In a sense this is already happening although instead of migrating to open protocols which solve the email problems we're migrating a lot of messaging to walled gardens which solve the problems (e.g. WhatsApp).
I guess that was google wave and yea it was a horrorshow.
I had hoped that something useful would come out of blockchain technology that would allow for a better messaging protocol that was spam resistant, e2e encrypted and decentralized by design but I didnt see anything.
>Email can't really change much. The protocol is too old. It would be better if we came up with new protocols that solve the email messaging problems and then gradually wean ourselves off email rather than trying to "fix" email.
I don't think so. Natural language is vague and repetitive.
I used hitchstory (YAML based stories) for doing this coz it's terse and typed.
I've tried using cucumber before and it reminds me of COBOL - which also had the same idea of making code more accessible via a "natural language-ish" interface.
The search box is gone and you're supposed to ask Rufus now.