This. I’d rather have fewer, better working features.

I’m on Codeberg because it cannot get bought out and enshittified (like GutHub, or GitLab).

I’m at a point where I reconsider my contribution if the project uses GitHub.

I think it’s due to multiple reasons, and the threshold of rejecting the course of GitHub/Microsoft/the USA seems to have reached a level where GitHub stopped being the “default” place to be for a number of projects already.

And if you are at a point were you need a Codeberg account anyway already, why not move your own projects there (or use it for new ones)?

Not to mention, the Forgejo project is at a stage were it feels like your bug report/feature request/contribution has an actual impact.

No?

Which is not very noteworthy, don’t you think?

Putting some HTML files on a web server somewhere is not that big of a mystery in 2025 that it might have been in 1995.

Github Pages supports Jekyll as a SSG out of the box.

Any documentation or tutorial – official or otherwise – that simply skips on this is getting people’s hopes up just to waste their time.

Perhaps, the linked page just does a poor job of selling that.

As someone also working on a minimal programming language, I might share some of the values, but using Go as an implementation language is an immediate turnoff.

Also, not having a single code example on the linked page is super-annoying.

People need to stop that.

Your opinion is unpopular, because it is wrong.

No normal person would think of C when told to imagine a language that is not bloated and not unnecessarily complex.

And all of this due to the mistaken design decision to stick with the obsolete readiness-based model instead of going with the superior completion-based model.

(You can build a readiness-based API on top of a completion-based API, but not the other way around.)

git worktree is just so much easier to work with if you want to work on multiple versions or branches of some code.

It allows having multiple IDE instances open, all fully functional and indexed, and handing over commits from one worktree to another without having to fetch constantly in between.

Trying to emulate this with multiple clones feels like trying to do OOP in C – sure one can do it, but it’s pointless hassle compared to a fleshed-out solution that works right out of the box.

Not to mention it’s so much faster and more efficient than git clone.

What a confused post.

There is not much to learn, so just do it? It’s not a relevant investment that would require much thought.

Studying at a university is not a fancy job training.

Do whatever pays your bills, and learn what interests you. Sometimes the latter will help with the former, but it would be silly to depend on that.

“apparently it’s a better safer C++, but I’m not going to switch because I can technically do all that stuff in C++”

The main difference between C++ and D was that (for most of the time in the past) D required a garbage collector.

So, D was a language with similar Algol-style syntax targeting a completely different niche from C++.

Trying to correct your quote, it should read something like “I’m not going to switch because I can’t technically do all that stuff in D that I’m doing in C++” for it to make any sense.

Oh, good idea … any preference on the first? :-)

I have some articles on naming specific areas of program code that people might find helpful:

• Naming language keywords
• Naming value creation operations
• Naming value conversion operations
• Naming operations on Options and Results
• Naming lookup operations
• Naming operations on Streams

Happily using it for presentation slides.