This is a use-after-free, which should be impossible in safe Rust due to the borrow checker. The only way for this to happen would be incorrect unsafe code (still possible, but dramatically reduced code surface to worry about) or a compiler bug. To allocate heap space in safe Rust, you have to use types provided by the language like Box, Rc, Vec, etc. To free that space (in Rust terminology, dropping it by using drop() or letting it go out of scope) you must be the owner of it and there may be current borrows (i.e. no references may exist). Once the variable is droped, the variable is dead so accessing it is a compiler error, and the compiler/std handles freeing the memory.

There’s some extra semantics to some of that but that’s pretty much it. These kind of memory bugs are basically Rust’s raison d’etre - it’s been carefully designed to make most memory bugs impossible without using unsafe. If you’d like more information I’d be happy to provide!

He was in his apartment. There was a call to the police about an argument in the building. The officer went to an apartment that is said the be the wrong one, banged on the door and shouted to open up. Fortston answered the door with a piston in his hand, pointing at the floor. The officer shot him.

According to the media, Forston was on the phone with his girlfriend for a while by the time the police were called. It seems to me that, as far as the officer was aware, the only “crime” that occured was “an argument”, and it sounds like the officer also had the wrong apartment. Unless I can view the bodycam footage it’s hard to be certain but this definitely sounds like he was killed because he was black and had a gun.

Even as an (older) zoomer in the US, this was never a thing for me. No one cared what phone you used. If you had an Android you wouldn’t be in iMessage group chats but no one judged you for it.

The issue is that, in the function passed to reduce, you’re adding each object directly to the accumulator rather than to its intended parent. These are the problem lines:

if (index == array.length - 1) {
	accumulator[val] = value;
} else if (!accumulator.hasOwnProperty(val)) {
	accumulator[val] = {}; // update the accumulator object
}

There’s no pretty way (that I can think of at least) to do what you want using methods like reduce in vanilla JS, so I’d suggest using a for loop instead - especially if you’re new to programming. Something along these lines (not written to be actual code, just to give you an idea):

let curr = settings;
const split = url.split("/");
for (let i = 0; i < split.length: i++) {
    const val = split[i];
    if (i != split.length-1) {
        //add a check to see if curr[val] exists
        let next = {};
        curr[val] = next;
        curr = next;
    }
    //add else branch
}

It’s missing some things, but the important part is there - every time we move one level deeper in the URL, we update curr so that we keep our place instead of always adding to the top level.

Yeah personally I haven’t needed jQuery in years.

Having made the choice to use GTK for a Rust project years ago - before a lot of the more Rust-friendly frameworks were around - this is exactly why I chose it. Nothing to do with DEs or any of that, just looking for a better coding experience. Now I’d probably choose one of the several Rust-focused solutions that have popped up though.

That’s good for handwriting, but digitally I prefer 𝟶. Either is acceptable though.

As an American this is how I feel. I don’t mind Fahrenheit but for absolutely everything else I desperately wish we’d switch.

I learned that after reading this xkcd and then the list. Which was concerningly recently.

I guess on the bright side it was the only misconception on the list that I had.

I mean yeah, we should absolutely be replacing as much fossil fuel use as we can with existing renewable energy tech. But there’s no reason we shouldn’t also be investing in fusion research, at least as far as I’m aware

Currying is converting a function with n parameters to n functions that each have one parameter. This is done automatically in most primarily functional languages. Then, partial application is when you supply less than n arguments to a curried function. In short, currying happens at the function definition and partial application happens at the function call.

Currently the type of test_increment is (int, int) -> unit -> unit. What we want is int -> int -> unit -> unit. The more idiomatic way would have this function definition:

let test_increment new_value original_value () =

Which would require this change in the callers:

test_case "blah" `Quick (test_increment 1 0);

See, in most primarily functional languages you don’t put parentheses around function parameters/arguments, nor commas between them - in this case, only around and between members of tuples.

I’m not an OCaml person but I do know other functional languages. I looked into Alcotest and it looks like the function after “`Quick” has to be unit -> unit. Because OCaml has currying, and I think test_increment already returns unit, all you should have to do is add an extra parameter of type unit. I believe that would be done like this:

let test_increment (new_value, original_value) () =

Now the expression test_increment (1, 0) returns a function that must be passed a unit to run its body. That means you can change the lambdas to e.g. this:

test_case "blah" `Quick (test_increment (1, 0))

I don’t know OCaml precedence rules so the enclosing parentheses here may not be necessary.

I’d also note that taking new_value and original_value as a tuple would probably be considered not idiomatic unless it makes sense for the structure of the rest of your code, especially because it limits currying like we did with the unit being able to be passed later. Partial application/currying is a big part of the flexibility of functional languages.

Edit: if you’re getting into functional programming you may also consider calling increment_by_one “succ” or “successor” which is the typical terminology in functional land.

Box is (basically) just the way to have memory on the heap. Here’s a direct comparison of how to do heap memory in C/++ and in rust:

int* intOnHeap = (int*)malloc(sizeof(int));
*intOnHeap = 0;
MyClass* classOnHeap = new MyClass();

let intOnHeap: Box = Box::new(0);
let structOnHeap: Box = Box::new(MyStruct::default());

There can be a bit more to it with custom allocators etc. but that’s the only way most people will use boxes. So Box basically just means “a T is allocated somewhere and we need to free that memory when this value is dropped”.

Eh, I’ll take assembly over like Perl any day. I may be biased since I like to reverse engineer though.

Except you remember carefully putting it down in a particular spot so you’ll remember where it is, but you’ve been looking for 10 minutes now and still can’t remember what that spot was

Pretty sure Jython is, though not a Python 3 version. My exposure is as the scripting language, behind Java as the primary language, for Ghidra. And I hate it and installed Eclipse rather than deal with J/Python’s shit.

Typically this thinking is mostly correct - e.g. Manifest v3 - but not in this case. If websites see enough users using chormium, via user agent or other fingerprinting, they’ll be more willing to require WEI. And unlike Manifest v3 etc. this affects the whole web, not just users of one browser or the other.

In every case monopolies are bad. Including in tech.