loveknight, loveknight@programming.dev

As the saying goes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think @floofloof@lemmy.ca summed things up pretty well here.

Also, from my reply to that comment:

As for the off-putting statements about ‘Rust people’: Since the article was published on March 19, I wonder if much of it, revolving around what the author saw as indications of authoritarianism, came from heavy disquiet in the face of authoritarianism’s recent gaining hold of the White house. I’d even consider it likely that people who post on Techrights have an above-average sensitivity for this kind of thing. It could be that the author has since arrived at a more differentiated and just view. Of note, since the time of his writing, the Rust project did remedy things that he criticized about their website.

Agree on everything. (As for the off-putting statements about 'Rust people': Since the article was published on March 19, I wonder if much of it, revolving around what the author saw as indications of authoritarianism, came from heavy disquiet in the face of authoritarianism's recent gaining hold of the White house. I'd even consider it likely that people who post on Techrights have an above-average sensitivity for this kind of thing. It could be that the author has since arrived at a more differentiated and just view. Of note, since the time of his writing, the Rust project did remedy things that he criticized about their website.)

1) Your criticism omits the passages about usage of the MIT license over the GPL (the ones I quoted in the post). I haven't quoted the other parts of the article because they are not as substantial, but their being opinionated and questionable in what they say about 'Rust people' does not mitigate the recklessness of those who strive to create MIT-licensed replacements for GNU coreutils.

2) Discord on the website of the Rust project: That's not a lie at all: it was the truth at the time of publication on March 19, and even as late as May (having been there for at least four years). So it appears that the Rust project has decided to drop Discord as an officially advertised channel. Good move. I would think that vocal criticism like the author's played a role in this.

3) Rust forum telling users to use Firefox, Chrome or Safari, and refusing to be accessible by other browsers (however circumventible this may have been): How was this not a sign of flagrant disregard for free software and for people's right to use the web however the fuck they want to use it - or how they need to use it, in case of disabilities? (This antifeature doesn't seem to be in place anymore, but compare point 2.)

Perfect, thanks for the explanation. Indeed, I found the same solution via StackOverflow about simultaneously.

Ah that's good to know about zsh.

Sorry regarding the second code block; it does indeed work as intended, and quite elegantly.

For the first code snippet to run correctly, $list would need to be put in double quotes: echo "$list" | ..., because otherwise echo will conflate the various lines into a single line.

The for loop approach is indeed quite readable. To make it solve the original task (which here means that it should also assign a number just smaller than $threshold to $tail, if $threshold is not itself contained in $list), one will have to do something in the spirit of what @Ephera@lemmy.ml and I describe in these comments.

Thank you, in fact I ended up doing something that's mathematically pretty much just that: I have the previous line stored in an auxiliary variable lastline, and it is the evaluation of the current line $0 that determines whether the previous line gets printed.

awk -v threshold=150 'BEGIN {lastline=""}
  (lastline!="" && threshold<$0){print lastline} #the additional check lastline!="" prevents an empty line at the very beginning
  {lastline=$0}
  END{print} #hardcode printing of the very last line, because otherwise it would never be printed
' 

Of note, in the case where some list entries are repeated, the behavior of this script will be:
- The threshold value, if it's in the list, will always be printed just once, even if it occurs multiple times in the list, and also if it happens to be the first, last, or only entry in the list.
- All larger entries will be printed exactly as often as they occur in the list. This even holds for the largest value: its last repetition will be printed via the final END{print} statement, whereas all preceding instances get printed through the statement that depends on threshold<$0.

(IIRC, it was a StackOverflow post that led me to this.)