Readit NewsAnd the fix to allow parallel reading is pretty trivial: escape new lines so that you can just keep reading until the first unescaped new line and start at that record.
It is particularly helpful if you are distributing work across machines, but even in the single machine case, it's simpler to tell a bunch of workers their offset/limit in a file.
There will be inevitable ultra-basic mistakes, especially if you're also not familiar with testing the code you're actually writing.
I say this as a specialist using an IDE and having had PRs sent to me that weren't even syntactically valid, because the developer was not using an LSP in a language they were not familiar with.
We didn't assume it is. Say you have a function of type (String -> String|Null). Further assume that you realize you don't necessarily need a String as input, and that you in fact are able to always output a string, no matter what. This means you can rewrite (improve!) the function such that it now has the type (String|Null -> String). Relaxing the type requirements for your inputs, or strengthening the guarantees for the type of your output, or both, is always an improvement. And there is no logical reason why you would need to change any external code for that. But many type systems are not able to automatically recognize and take advantage of this logical fact.
> > Several other null-safe languages [...] returning Y implies returning Y or Null.
> I have trouble seeing how the language is null-safe in that situation.
If you always assign a value of type Y to a variable of type Y|Null, the compiler will enforce a check for Null if you access the value of the variable, which is unnecessary (as the type of the variable could be changed to Y), but it can't result in a null pointer exception.
Alef => Limbo => Go.
Being able to backport Go into Plan 9, doesn't make sense in this context, that isn't how historical evolution works.
Also even Inferno has the necessary C infrastructure to port Go, if someone hasn't done it already.
This is IMO the biggest drawback. Why wouldn't any user want the software to be feature rich? In fact, looking at Plan 9, I often feel that the provided software is just a MVP.