But copilot actually outputs code into your project, do you really want citations there? I prefer to just enable the setting for it to not reproduce code verbatim from other projects.
Sounds like a codebase filled with the ghosts of programmer past. Just put the code in and own maintaining it. Anyone can do a git blame and find the history of its implementation, and also see the original PR which should have described what it was doing, and provided far more context to the reviewers than a code comment.
And if an architecture decision is so significant, retain a repository of architecture decision records.
Wait is this true? Doesn’t it also use SQLAlchemy at least? Which then likely has its own dependencies? I’d be really surprised if Django had no dependencies at all.
Django doesn't use SQLALchemy, they have their own ORM system. And it's true that Django used to have 0 real dependencies (now it has 2), but even now many of its "optional builtins" do require some additional external packages, and some of them are really useful.
For example you need an external package to use builtin postgresql, mysql or oracledb support. You need tblib to run tests in parallel using the built-in test runner. You need external packages to use argon2 or bcrypt as password hashers in the builtin auth system, and I'm sure there are others, since Django is very much batteries included, but modular.
The modularity also means you can also use any 3rd party database, use pytest to run tests, make your password hashing on your own, ... so I can understand that these are not listed as dependencies on pypi, but I don't really like that I have to list packages I don't directly import in my code as direct dependencies...
Django had zero external dependencies for a long time, which was a factor of its history.
The first release of Django was in 2005. Back then, the Python Package Index didn't exist yet. Installing Python dependencies was really hard - you pretty much had to grab a copy of the code for each one and put it on your "sys.path" somehow.
So Django avoided the issue entirely by bundling everything you needed to build a web application in a single package.
That's why Django has "django.contrib" - in a time before pip dependencies, it was a way to separate out things like GeoDjango which weren't exactly part of the "core" framework but could be distributed along with it.
Amen. Until recently, I was exclusively working with Django for 5+ years. I definitely fell into the trap of making the ORM for granted. Had a brief foray into the JS world and despite plenty of slick-looking projects with fancy pants websites, nothing remotely compares.
Same here, I came into a project that had been started months before and found that they were spending weeks reimplementing stuff that comes out of the box in Django. But not as well.
All of them are bad in their own ways. They all fall down in key features, or the non-standard SQL features (hooks, after-save, automatic transactions, etc) all have edge-cases and surprising behaviour.
I have tried a lot and the least worst is Zapatos (and it's not really an ORM) because it at least tries to not paper over SQL and instead just creates a type-safe API for using SQL.
The thing is - even if someone creates an amazing ORM for Node, I doubt I'd use it. I am tired and done with async everything. No more NodeJS for business logic.
Now, if someone could create a Django-like ORM for Java or Rust, then we're talking. Hibernate and Diesel are nowhere near Django's ORM in terms of productivity and "it just works" factor. Go's GORM looks pretty good but haven't tried it. jooq does not look as easy to use or setup, and the workflow is entirely different.
Slightly related, I'm not used to using ORMs. Spoiled by jooq from the JVM world, writing SQL with the query builder in TypeORM was a terrible experience.
I replied to your other comment, but you could clarify here, when did it come to popular usage, when was it "invented", and when did you here about it?
It’s been a common term in my country for as long as I can remember so it might be cultural. I’d say “biological parents” has a more clinical connotation to it but would be just as easily interpreted.
Most commonly used by people who are adopted to refer to their biological parents (especially I would say if they have a relationship with them). I definitely wouldn’t view it as a woke term (I wouldn’t see how it would serve that demographic) unless it’s being used in a different way to the definition I posted earlier.
Reading the article it might have a new meaning which potentially refers to the parent who actually performs the birth? I still don’t think I’d consider that woke but I’ve never heard it in that context and would find it a confusing term since I’m used to the other definition.
> Reading the article it might have a new meaning which potentially refers to the parent who actually performs the birth?
I don’t think its a real new meaning in any kind of general use, it is just bad writing trying to condense the terminology used in the earlier article. The early article it references on the leave policy uses “parents who give birth”. Aside from gender identity issues, this also addresses the fact that the Google policy (as I understand it) applies to adoptive parents as well, so even leaving aside gender identity “mothers” and “parents who give birth” would not be identical groups. “Birth parents” is a writer making a misguided and overzealous attempt at making that more terse.
> Reading the article it might have a new meaning which potentially refers to the parent who actually performs the birth? I still don’t think I’d consider that woke but I’ve never heard it in that context and would find it a confusing term since I’m used to the other definition.
I see, another user commented about it possibly including "surrogacy", so that may be the explanation there.
Biological would more refer to those who provided the sperm & eggs, birth would refer to those who actually did the... birthing. The birth father would be the one in the relationship with the birth mother?
“birth parents” and “biological parents” are synonyms, and have been as long as I’ve been alive (well, at least using language.) This is not some novel usage.
Adopted, so kind of forced to be aware of things like that.
Most likely there has been no such change. You've just started paying attention to it for some reason. Looking at a couple of data sources for popularity of terms over time, "birth parent" has been consistently more used:
So if a family provided eggs & sperm and had a surrogate to give birth on their behalf, then later gave the child up for adoption, how would you identify everyone?
Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.
Why are you asking me? I don't give a crap about that.
You made a statement on this being a new term, I gave references showing it was factually incorrect. The proper response is "thank you, I was wrong", not whatever this thing you responded with is.
> what’s the % of how often you have heard “biological” vs “birth” parents and has the rate changed any?
Biological has always had a notable edge, but it seems subjectively to have eroded slowly over time over the last 40+ years that I’ve been exposed to it (thinking mostly of print, its been near parity in what I’ve heard, but “birth” is what I favor and what my [adoptive] parents favored so…)
I mean, the whole process of carrying a child is biological, so, I probably wouldn’t distinguish them that way. The general case in surrogacy (and exceptions to this usually involve someone who is identified as a “donor” of some material, rather than a parent) involve the suppliers of genetic material being the caretaking parties after birth, so typically the terms “parents” and “surrogate” suffice.
So if a family provided eggs & sperm and had a surrogate to give birth on their behalf, then later gave the child up for adoption, how would you identify everyone?
Also, I'd assume the child would later look for those people with their genetic material, their biological parents, those who provided the sperm & eggs. Not the birth parent, who birthed them. There's much less of a connection there as it's the person who simply carried them for a money transaction and is not part of the child genetically.
> when did the term come to popular usage? When was it “invented”?
Its always been somewhat less popular than “biological parents”, but its been in wide use since somewhere about the late 1970s, and it (or at least, the narrower form “birth mother”) was in use by the early 1950s at the latest.
The reason why it’s qualified by people who are adopted is because people who aren’t would just refer to them as “parents” not “birth parents” since there is no need to make a distinction.
People who are adopted have two sets of parents so it’s used to distinguish who they are referring to.
It often doesn’t. Plenty of competitive games are free to play and make their money from cosmetics and battle passes. I’m not a huge fan of those things either but I don’t think you could call LoL pay to win for example.
That seems like a pretty good idea generally. For a single-player game an extra straight-to-stream output could even show extra info; be third person, etc.
Hell, why not include the ability to render locally, like a halo/StarCraft (and many other series of course, these are just the two I remember) replay.
The player still has to see the game and "watching your own stream" introduces significant (inconsistent) latency making it inappropriate for any game with timing.
I think it is. It still seems like a minority situation to me. How much of a player base is streamers that it makes sense to optimize games for Twitch? Wouldn't it make more sense for Twitch to optimize video codecs for games in mind instead?
The viewership and exposure level is so great on Twitch/Youtube/Facebook/etc that games already have "streamer modes" that hide information to, for example, help prevent stream snipers (including big games like Call of Duty).
Streaming is big. Making your game look good when streamed is probably worthwhile.
Arguably some game genres and trends wouldn't even exist if not for streaming.
Battle Royale games were based on a little known ARMA mod that was popularized by streamers like Lirik which lead to more people playing them which lead to more games like that being made.
A small fraction of players, but its a critical fraction to market a game. Many games already have a "streamer mode" that disables licensed music among other things.
Do you ever find it an issue that your WSL filesystem is generally seperate from the standard windows filesystem (e.g. incompatible line endings, weird permissions etc). Also do you connect your editor to the WSL filesystem version of the repo remotely? Or are you able to do it “locally” as well?
I’ve found using WSL often feels like using two computers except the Linux one is generally headless.
