> Careful not to mix unions with sum types, though. The key distinction is that the latter are disjunct sets, even if you "sum" together the same type twice, you can always tell which "way" you went.

This is a really good point. I'd love to be able to have a sum type of two strings ("escaped" and "unescaped"); or any two kinds of the same type really, to model two kinds of the same type where one has already passed some sort of validation and the other one hasn't.

Edit to add: I figure what I want is for enums to be extended such that different branches are able to carry different properties.

Edit again (I should learn to think things through before posting. sorry): I suppose it can be faked using a union of different wrapper types, and in fact it might be the best way to do it so then methods can take just one of the types in arguments and maybe even provide different overloads.

Which brings us to: SpaceChem's soundtrack.

Elon Musk's ears are burning.

I don't remember which HN thread I've heard this joke originally from, but...

People in Montenegro: it's not .yu, it's .me

> The core of what we were doing (Writing code) dictated the core of our tool kit (IDE). > > Now that we're not writing code anymore it's very exciting to see how this unfolds in the tool kit.

So maybe the text area in your IDE becomes read-only. Even when not actively debugging, you still need to read code and efficiently browse through it as you review it. Because you always review code, don't you? Don't you??

Of course, but it's a 50/50 between exploring the code in an IDE and just looking at the diff.

For simple things the diff is enough, but for something more complex diving into the code and following branches etc. is required.

For what is worth, I prefer the name pomato to totato.

I'll keep that in mind when marketing. I was going to go with French Fry Tree.

Name to consider: twoatos (pot- and tom-)

For what it's worth, it's what caught my attention. I wouldn't have found it so captivating if it had only said "Fixing Google Nano Banana Pixel Art". To be clear, it's not because of Rust in particular. It would have been the same if it said "with C#", or "with Python", or even just "programmatically". And on that note: I feel disappointed. I thought I would be reading about the development process, and not just a product presentation.

If someone makes a presentation about this format, it will be a PEP talk.

</philosoraptor>

> Once (a) models are capable enough to distinguish between semi-plausible garbage and possibly relevant text

https://xkcd.com/810/

It breaks scrolling with the arrow keys or PgDn/PgUp as well.