I am an EU citizen so Ireland will probably be easier but I'm wondering by how much. I'm much more drawn to the UK as I am more connected to It's culture.
My biggest concern is finding new connections. I struggle with it here as well and I don't think moving to another country will just magically make that go away. Although I do feel more confident in English than in my native language.
and people complain about wayland.
The Idea is that the enum acts as a union, capable of holding any of the member types, It's not that different from using identifiers and when transpiling to rust I will probably only support variants beginning with string literals (or maybe generate them).
The main reason is that I could use type inference to define the variants in a returned anonymous enum.
I like the pipe symbol because it is useful for distinguishing between enums and structs without keywords. And I just personally think it looks better. And allow for pretty anonymous enums like (|String |Int) for something that can accept both a string and an integer.
I'm making a language with a lot of inspiration from rust and was experimenting with alternative enum syntax. It relies on literals to be types in order to convey information on the different options.
I don't really get on well with Typescript but having the ability to use literals as types is something I really liked as a lot of the times I use static string literals as errors. and having all the variants upcast through types makes it easier to do pattern matching.
Plain-text transcription of the image:
// using rust like enum syntax
Option<T> (
| "Some" T
| "None"
)
fn match_demo() {
let some_option = Option "Some" "text";
let none_option = Option "None";
match some_option {
"Some" "hello" => print("oh hi there"),
"Some" text => print("Option is {text}"),
"None" => print("Option is {text}"),
}
}
// Or maybe more experimental syntax
Option<T> (
| T
| ()
)
fn match_demo2() {
let opt = Option "something";
match opt {
"text" => "matching directly",
var => "bind to variable",
() => "nothing",
}
}
I needed a way to bootstrap the tree-sitter parser. I should probably provide the bootstrapped grammar.json as well. That way you don't need to generate it.
Not having a license is "All Rights Reserved". That's why I bothered with the license section in the readme at all.
Thanks!
I intend for the language to have a similar borrow checker and type system. Which is why I'm targeting rust. It means I have something to check against when writing the tooling. (Although I'm not sure I'll get that far. My computer is littered with dead projects).
I don't really want to clutter the repo with something so frivolous. If they were links or an SPDX ID would that be enough?
I'm intending to use this for a custom language "OA" that I want to compile to Rust and JS to start with.
I don't know enough about LLVM to compile directly to machine code although I would like to.
Original in this post: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/33311504
I thought it was cool and spent an hour in Inkscape trying to recreate it.
Isn't this the source for the relay? https://github.com/bluesky-social/indigo/tree/main/cmd/bigsky
And even then the readme says:
A note and reminder about Relays in general are that they are more of a convenience in the protocol than a hard requirement. The "firehose" API is the exact same on the PDS and on a Relay. Any service which subscribes to the Relay could instead connect to one or more PDS instances directly.
And the PDS source code is here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/pds
EDIT: The PDS source is actually here: https://github.com/bluesky-social/atproto/tree/main/packages/pds the other link is for self hosting.
feel free to remove if it's too low quality. Just wanted to post somewhere nice for a change.
Hopefully now with less downvotes.
Oops. I made it in a hurry so I used Kamala instead of Harris. Just now noticed. Is it worth a reupload?
Hares another thought I had.
We all know the political compass. The simple way to map all of politics in just two axis on a 2d plain. Reducing the fascinating complexity of society to just four sectors. With such unhelpful labels as "left" and "right". Here's my version. The "left-right" axis is replaced with class authority and "lib-auth" with state authority. Now If any lib-rights want to argue with me about the label I'm happy to do so.
The other thing I want to note is that, in my opinion, the lib-right and auth-left sectors are impossible. They represent ideas that do not match reality. because authority creates authority. By mapping class and state authority separately you can see that if you somehow manage to eliminate one but champion the other, the remaining will just form the other. Either by state bureaucrats becoming the privileged class, or the companies creating private militias and becoming states in all but name. That is what the black arrows represent: the tendency to move to a stable balance between the two authorities.
I have a theory. (technically I have many but today I'm talking about this one.) Well actually it's more of a visualization. As an anarchist I have spend a lot of time pondering on anarchist society and it's relation to the archic one. This pondering led me to this scale. The Chaos-Order scale. It position political systems on a single point depending on the amount of chaos a society deems acceptable.
I decided to divide the scale into 4 sections. There could be more but i wanted clearly defined borders between them.
These sections are defined by clear boundaries (marked with #):
The arrows signify how every section can be entered.
It should be noted that anarchy and total chaos are separated by an impassable border. #1 The minimum order for society. This is because total chaos can only exists for a moment between archic systems collapsing and the formation of an extremely authoritarian society (The rule of violence). True anarchic systems should be immune to this collapse as it requires the complete breakdown of the social bonds between people.
The second border is the anarchy-democracy border. This border is defined by having any form of hierarchical society. It is passed when an anarchist revolutionary class takes control of the entire functioning of society or when an anarchic society collapses back into archy.
The third is the democracy-authy border. This is defined by having some form of democratic control over society. Essentially free elections. Most people should already be familiar with the concept.
First of all: Are you assuming I'm in America? If you are then you're wrong. And moving to somewhere currently going through mass deportations is just taking a huge unnecessary risk.
Secondly: while an unstable political situation could be a good motivator to get people organizing collectively, It's also equally likely that an authoritarian state emerges that will suppress any attempt to reduce peoples dependency to the state. While it would be exciting I don't think I'm personally up for it.
I think that it is safer to begin collectivisation somewhere that's more politically stable to grow a big enough following that when hostilities start you could hold your own. Unless some place already has a lot of anarchic/syndicalist thought then It's going to be hard to start it with everyone at each-others throats.
And it's also possible I've misunderstood you're comment and you're using anarchy as a synonym for chaos. In which case I just want to point out that my use is different. When I say anarchy I mean a power structure based on mutual aid and strong interpersonal relations without any leaders or hierarchy.