I agree, many always start with the premise "hosting is hard", but maybe this was true 20 years ago, now hosting providers let you spin-up a server in a few clicks, have monitoring, alerts, automatic updates and more. The good part is that for 99.99% of the time, once you set-up a server it could keep on running without issues for many years.
I am not a sys-admin but I have used multiple hosting providers (shared, VPS, dedicated) and so far I never had a single server fail or suddenly stop working.
True, sadly shared hosting still limit with capped disk IO and bandwidth at a premium price which would be similar or more than competitive VPS in performance.
I'm still looking out for competitive VPS provider other than UpCloud if you have any recommendations.
Just for reference in Techemppwer Benchmark, the same guy who utilizes H2O HTTP source code for benchmarking, wrote h2o.cr for Crystal language and pico.v for V language. Itβs isnβt mean for general use in any projects.
One thing I really like about Dart is the lack of interface objects, they are implicit. The `contract` proposal feels like having to write interfaces. The inference in Dart is really nice to work with as the compiler gets it right most of the time.
The other thing is the documentation is really easy to grok and come up to speed on:
As far as I can make out, the new website was considered a key part of the "Rust 2018" project, and so the maintainers chose to launch it before it was really finished (and without the planned period for user feedback), at the same time as the Rust 2018 release.
Evidently it wasn't quite such a key part of the project that they could consider delaying the new Rust edition until the website was ready.
In hindsight tying the website update to the new edition was quite possibly a mistake. The Rust core team has asked people to hold off on discussing the process or proposing major changes until they've published a retrospective on what happened (that was five months ago, and the retrospective is now "mostly finished").
Thank you for explaining it. I now finally understand why it was deployed with removed functionality.
That said, that is a completely idiotic reason to remove something like i18n. Unbelievable.
I wish I could say I don't understand how this got approved by multiple people, but the sad reality is that nobody makes internationalization a priority. It's completely normal to not have the other languages I use to not be supported, but I guess it stings to actively have it be removed.
Instead of yelling at people who weren't involved with the decisions and are only providing context, maybe go write a calm series of bug tickets explaining your concern, or better offer to and follow up on helping with i8n support?
So raising a point on a random internet post is now considered "yelling"? Interesting. Also, I called "that reason" dumb. Perhaps you're personally involved with the project, but please try to read things as they are instead of taking offense unnecessarily.
Counterargument: How about one doesn't remove stuff like i18n in updates? Or what about simply delaying the deployment until the i18n and other features are done? Or is removing support for other languages considered acceptable if the new, English only, website looks very pretty? [tone is of light sarcasm]
Counterargument #2: just because something is open source doesn't mean you can go "well, just open a ticket or do it yourself". No, how about people in general update things properly (or at the very least, don't remove translations)? I'm perfectly allowed to criticize removing important functionality like i18n. It was there, now it isn't, and I didn't make the choice to remove it. It's not my job to do other people's jobs for them just because I exercised my ability to criticize something. Otherwise I would be working on GUIs/UX for open source linux projects until I die. [tone is of exasperation in open source software development]
