If you’re not into tiling, install openbox and a panel of your choosing. You will quickly find that you don’t need a DE at all.

The maintenance is too high.

acquired knowledge spotted

I will let you on a little secret.

The best “support” you can get is support from upstreams directly (I’m involved in both sides of that equation). But upstreams will often only “support” you when you 1. run the latest stable version 2. the upstream source code wasn’t patched willy-nilly by the packager (your distro).

So the best desktop linux experience comes with using rolling distro that gives you such packages, with Arch being the most prominent example.

The acquired knowledge that argues stability and tells you otherwise is a meme.

a better solution would be to add a method called something like ulock that does a combined lock and unwrap.

That’s exactly what’s done above using an extension trait! You can mutex_val.ulock() with it!

Now that I think about it, I don’t like how unwrap can signal either “I know this can’t fail”, “the possible error states are too rare to care about” or “I can’t be bothered with real error handing right now”.

That’s why you’re told (clippy does that i think) to use expect instead, so you can signal “whatever string” you want to signal precisely.

• C++ offers no guaranteed memory safety.
• A fictional safe C++ that would inevitably break backwards compatibility might as well be called Noel++, because it’s not the same language anymore.
• If that proposal ever gets implemented (it won’t), neither the promise of guaranteed memory safety will hold up, nor any big C++ project will adopt it. Big projects don’t adopt the (rollingly defined) so-called modern C++ already, and that is something that is a part of the language proper, standardized, and available via multiple implementations.

would you argue that it’s impossible to write a"hello, world" program in C++

bent as expected

This proposal is just a part of a damage control campaign. No (supposedly doable) implementation will ever see the light of day. Ping me when this is proven wrong.

The only (arguably*) baseless claim in that quote is this part:

it’s theoretically possible to write memory-safe C++

Maybe try to write more humbly and less fanatically, since you don’t seem to be that knowledgable about anything (experienced in other threads too).

* It’s “theoretically possible” to write memory-safe assembly if we bend contextual meanings enough.

if you’re really that bothered…

use std::sync::{Mutex, MutexGuard};

trait ULock<'a> {
    type Guard;
    fn ulock(&'a self) -> Self::Guard;
}

impl<'a, T: 'a> ULock<'a> for Mutex<T> {
    type Guard = MutexGuard<'a, T>;
    fn ulock(&'a self) -> Self::Guard {
      self.lock().unwrap()
    }
}

or use a wrapper struct, if you really really want the method to be called exactly lock.

If lock-ergonomics^ⓒ is as relevant to you as indexing, you’re doing it wrong.

I would rather take indexing returning Results than the other way around.

One can always wrap any code in {||{ //.. }}() and use question marks liberally anyway (I call them stable try blocks 😉).

…and that’s how you drive up metrics.

Gross!

Unprofessional.
This is why no one takes Rust seriously.

but futures only execute when polled.

The most interesting part here is the polling only has to take place on the scope itself. That was actually what I wanted to check, but got distracted because all spawns are awaited in the scope in moro’s README example.

async fn slp() {
    tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(1)).await
}

async fn _main() {
    let result_fut = moro::async_scope!(|scope| {
        dbg!("d1");
        scope.spawn(async { 
            dbg!("f1a");
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f1b");
        });
        dbg!("d2"); // 11
        scope.spawn(async {
            dbg!("f2a");
            slp().await;
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f2b");
        });
        dbg!("d3"); // 14
        scope.spawn(async {
            dbg!("f3a");
            slp().await;
            dbg!("f3b");
        });
        dbg!("d4");
        async { dbg!("b1"); } // never executes
    });
    slp().await;
    dbg!("o1");
    let _ = result_fut.await;
}

fn main() {
    let rt = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_multi_thread()
        .enable_all()
        .build()
        .unwrap();
    rt.block_on(_main())
}

[src/main.rs:32:5] "o1" = "o1"
[src/main.rs:7:9] "d1" = "d1"
[src/main.rs:15:9] "d2" = "d2"
[src/main.rs:22:9] "d3" = "d3"
[src/main.rs:28:9] "d4" = "d4"
[src/main.rs:9:13] "f1a" = "f1a"
[src/main.rs:17:13] "f2a" = "f2a"
[src/main.rs:24:13] "f3a" = "f3a"
[src/main.rs:26:13] "f3b" = "f3b"
[src/main.rs:20:13] "f2b" = "f2b"
[src/main.rs:13:13] "f1b" = "f1b"

The non-awaited jobs are run concurrently as the moro docs say. But what if we immediately await f2?

[src/main.rs:32:5] "o1" = "o1"
[src/main.rs:7:9] "d1" = "d1"
[src/main.rs:15:9] "d2" = "d2"
[src/main.rs:9:13] "f1a" = "f1a"
[src/main.rs:17:13] "f2a" = "f2a"
[src/main.rs:20:13] "f2b" = "f2b"
[src/main.rs:22:9] "d3" = "d3"
[src/main.rs:28:9] "d4" = "d4"
[src/main.rs:24:13] "f3a" = "f3a"
[src/main.rs:13:13] "f1b" = "f1b"
[src/main.rs:26:13] "f3b" = "f3b"

f1 and f2 are run concurrently, f3 is run after f2 finishes, but doesn’t have to wait for f1 to finish, which is maybe obvious, but… (see below).

So two things here:

1. Re-using the spawn terminology here irks me for some reason. I don’t know what would be better though. Would defer_to_scope() be confusing if the job is awaited in the scope?
2. Even if assumed obvious, a note about execution order when there is a mix of awaited and non-awaited jobs is worth adding to the documentation IMHO.

I skimmed the latter parts of this post since I felt like I read it all before, but I think moro is new to me. I was intrigued to find out how scoped span exactly behaves.

async fn slp() {
    tokio::time::sleep(std::time::Duration::from_millis(1)).await
}

async fn _main() {
    let value = 22;
    let result_fut = moro::async_scope!(|scope| {
        dbg!(); // line 8
        let future1 = scope.spawn(async {
            slp().await;
            dbg!(); // line 11
            let future2 = scope.spawn(async {
                slp().await;
                dbg!(); // line 14
                value // access stack values that outlive scope
            });
            slp().await;
            dbg!(); // line 18

            let v = future2.await * 2;
            v
        });

        slp().await;
        dbg!(); // line 25
        let v = future1.await * 2;
        slp().await;
        dbg!(); // line 28
        v
    });
    slp().await;
    dbg!(); // line 32
    let result = result_fut.await;
    eprintln!("{result}"); // prints 88
}

fn main() {
    // same output with `new_current_thread()` of course
    let rt = tokio::runtime::Builder::new_multi_thread()
        .enable_all()
        .build()
        .unwrap();
    rt.block_on(_main())
}

This prints:

[src/main.rs:32:5]
[src/main.rs:8:9]
[src/main.rs:25:9]
[src/main.rs:11:13]
[src/main.rs:18:13]
[src/main.rs:14:17]
[src/main.rs:28:9]
88

So scoped spawn doesn’t really spawn tasks as one might mistakenly think!

Because non-open ones are not available, even for a price. Unless you buy something bigger than the “standard” itself of course, like a company that is responsible for it or having access to it.

There is also the process of standardization itself, with committees, working groups, public proposals, …etc involved.

Anyway, we can’t backtrack on calling ISO standards and their likes “open” on the global level, hence my suggestion to use more precise language (“publicly available and sharable”) when talking about truly open standards.

The term open-standard does not cut it. People should start using “publicly available and sharable” instead (maybe there is a better name for it).

ISO standards for example are technically “open”. But how relevant is that to a curious individual developer when anything you need to implement would require access to multiple “open” standards, each coming with a (monetary) price, with some extra shenanigans ^[archived] on top.

IETF standards however are actually truly open, as in publicly available and sharable.

It implies that the value of their policy work is significantly below…

It’s always safe to assume that value to be negative unless proven otherwise actually.

The LARPing levels in moronix comments are higher than usual, but the comedic value is still not lost.

Monthly Reminder: High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

Ask yourself:

• Where do these stats come from?
• What do they actually measure?
• How can the total number of all Desktop Linux users or devices be known to anyone?

​
The fact of the matter is, none of these stats actually measure the number of users. Most of them are just totally flawed guestimates based on what is often limited web analytics data collected by them.

In fact, not even the developers of a single distribution can guess the number of people/devices using/running that specific distribution. A distribution like Debian for example has mirrors, and mirrors to some mirrors, and maybe even mirrors to some mirrors to some mirrors. So if Debian developers can’t possibly know the number of Debian users, do you think OP’s site knows the total number of Desktop Linux users?

And let’s not get into the fact that the limited data they collect itself is not even reliable. View desktop site on your Android phone’s browser. Congratulations! Now you’re a desktop Linux user. No special user-agent spoofing add-on needed. You’re even running X11. Good choice not following the Wayland fad too soon.

High or low, all Linux usage stats are fake.

Keep (Neo)Vim out of this.