@SebAaltonen I think this is the right way to do it. The result is that, as a user, you have a choice between convenience and full control. This is one of the things I appreciate about Zig and I started applying this mentality elsewhere.
@1ovthafew@teamloomis Are you sure? Then how does it work? AI has been shown to be able to reproduce a lot of training data verbatim. I have myself often had it generate code that was almost an exact copy of stackoverflow answers.
You're just saying "it doesn't", how can you back that up?
@zuhaitz_dev I know what that feels like. Go and talk to someone about this if you can. It's really important not to define yourself by what you do, you matter without all of it too. It sucks, but it does get better. Hang in there :)
@zuhaitz_dev Afaik its completely custom. I discovered it while looking for a C compiler with native wasm support, no idea how its not more widely known. Theres this playground using it: https://t.co/n3noa3bqxh
@oxcrowx I'm not a great programmer by any means but for me I feel like the biggest improvements come from starting over. Implement something, throw away the code and do it again. And again. This way I've learned much quicker than usual :D
@neogoose_btw @oxcrowx This is one of the features I disliked too when starting to use Zig, but I changed my mind. image and img are NOT the same, image is nullable so I view it like a Boolean and tend to name it smth like has_image. Then when doing a null check I can name it image
@nicbarkeragain In my mind this creates a sort of call tree that we have to walk. To do this I would create a list of integers that represent the state of this tree. Each element contains the amount of invocations we have left to perform on that "level". Something like this:
@TheGingerBill@nicbarkeragain I see two different kinds of "mutations", the array is probably pointer based but the offset variable is passed by value and modified in the loop. I thought that was the kind of mutation he was talking about but it's not clear.