This is ridiculous. Indentation is a visual concern for humans and braces are a semantic concern for a machine. Code only needs the latter to actually execute.
You can prefer them be coupled for taste reasons but they are fundamentally different. Code minification is a practical example where you can save many characters by omitting whitespace.
This is like tabs vs spaces. The white spaces crowd prefer the trade offs, and the tab crowd don't. But the white space crowd can't argue the perks of tabs - they exist.
The tabs/spaces war was fought because of IDE choices that restricted your ability for sane tab rendering defaults, and simple overriding of tab size.
Now that terrible text editors won, I have to watch a 2 Vs 4 space war.
If only we could have a character that could represent indentation and people could set the rendering so they can visualise it in their own preferred way.
And folks who want to remove braces should be pointed to the Apple certificate snafu.
Considering that we lost tabs because some peoples text editors and web browsers rendered them as 8 spaces, and drew the wrong conclusion, I don't have much hope for your plan.
However I would be completely on board if we could agree on a formatting configuration file that people could check into a repo for IDEs to pick up.
I think we've mostly agreed on editorconfig[1], though it doesn't concern itself with language-specific formatting - it's even built into a lot of editors.
For language-specific formatting, you can run formatters in pre-commit-hooks and CI. Treefmt[2] can help with that if you want to cover a lot of languages in your repo.
I see it, I understand the argument for coupling them. But the argument makes an assumption I am not comfortable with - it says they are there for the same exact same reason, which is not actually true. It is often incidentally true in practice depending on the needs of the language - but it is not universally true across all needs in all languages.
It's the same thing with semi-colons. Having a statement separator provides practical benefits in several languages. In many of these languages, they are also optional.
If you were to say that all languages should parse both styles to get the best of both worlds, that wouldn't be completely unreasonable. But it makes the parsing more complex than necessary to support both, so only one is often supported - which is fair.
That's not true, the argument does not "say they are there for the same exact reason", that's your strawman. The argument is just: "they always come together thus one is redundant and we obviously can't remove indentation". The difference in reason, syntax/compiler vs. legibility, is irrelevant.
I mean, you can argue for having both for a myriad of reasons. It's redundant and no big deal, a lot of languages do just that. And some languages do fine with only indentation and no braces. But there is no language that does braces without indentation, or at least stylewise the code is always indented.
These optimizations for some perceived ergonomic win almost always make terrible tradeoffs versus using a good well established data format. And especially systems which favor human consumption but create extreme difficulties for machine handling, those are the worst!
Yaml being such a non-Context Free Grammar is a huge pain. There's so much state in the parser. It only gets worse from there. Yaml has all kinds of wild crazy capabilities. References, a variety of inline content blocks, and weird ways to invoke stuff?? GitHub yesterday did a code review of Frigate, an enormously popular surveillance video analysis tool that's heavily downloaded, and found, oh yes, a huge glaring yaml bug allowing remote execution, because executing arbitrary code is just built right in to yaml amid 3000 other crazy hacks & who would have known to go look for & disable that capability?! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38630295https://github.blog/2023-12-13-securing-our-home-labs-frigat...
Typing is not the problem (even though I see so many people just terrible beyond words at navigating project structures or the command line... Improve! Some day!).
Yes, and my understanding is that SVB's assets, which are still productive over the long term, were sold on to pay for this "bailout." So the narrative that there was a government bailout is not really true here. The real concern I've heard is that FDIC insurance paid out to a lot of depositors who had more than the statutory limit, but what's left out is that FDIC actually sold on SVB's assets to pay those depositors. It seems like they're taking an interpretation that the statutory limit only applies to banks which don't have any assets that can be traded on.
SVB’s bailout is estimated to have cost the FDIC 20B. The Fed also set up new lending programs to support the banks, which was essentially free* money.
I don’t really see how that’s relevant. Paying into the FDIC DIF is a legal requirement of the banks. It’s basically a tax. Somehow bankers have convinced everyone that they have impunity to mess up the financial system just because they pay a special tax.
And if the FDIC is really going to offer unlimited depositor protection, they’re going to need a lot more than the 100-200B in the DIF.
The SVB investors which were many millionaires, did lose 100% of their investment.
The depositors, regardless of wealth, were lied to about the safety of their funds. It was roughly fraud - it wasn't their fault - they didn't take excess risk. How is it a bailout to let them keep their money?
The depositors were bailed out. Also, I would say the banking sector as a whole was bailed out. Providing unlimited insurance is to SVB’s depositors allowed other banks to remain solvent, as did the Fed’s new lending programs.
> I would say the banking sector as a whole was bailed out
I disagree with that characterization.
The FDIC refunds depositors using money (assessments) they collect from member banks. So in essence, unless the government does something special to inject funds directly into the FDIC, the remaining FDIC member banks would likely see their assessment rates go up to cover the costs of these bank failures.
> "any losses to the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF) as a result of uninsured
deposit insurance coverage will be repaid by a special assessment on banks as required by law."
My point is that the FDIC DIF premiums and assessments are mandated by law and are thus a tax levied on banks. So the you’re trying to make it seem like the banks are managing the risk themselves but another way of looking at it is that all FDIC operations are funded via tax revenue, just like everything else the government does. Ultimately, the FDIC is backed by the full faith and credit of the US.
It's indirect. Softbank gave money to startups. Startups put the money in SVB. If the startups hadn't been made whole then softbank would have seen many of it's investments fold.
Does asking this advance the discussion, or is it a passive-aggressive way to continue signalling you believe “seized the bank and sold it, keeping deposits whole” means “SoftBank bailout”?
If you really think about it, it was a bailout of the American people. And that's why it was good and an example of socialist praxis.
After all, startups take venture capital money from the rich and spend it primarily on t-shirts and catering - which primarily comes from small businesses who hire local unskilled labour.
SVB's depositors were primarily businesses with more than $250,000 in an account. Over 90% of depositors(google for exact percenatge) had more than 250,000 in the account.
So who was the bailout for?
Not the average guy on the street...
> So who was the bailout for? Not the average guy on the street...
The "bailout" (badly named) was for the average people working at these companies. Their families that wouldn't have gotten a paycheck. The grocery stores they couldn't have bought from.
Payroll accounts should be 100% FDIC insured the same why it works in many other countries.
"Payroll accounts should be 100% FDIC insured the same why it works in many other countries."
Perhaps, but they are not so it is a bailout.
"The "bailout" (badly named) was for the average people working at these companies."
That jumps to a conclusion and fails to recognize the business owes a debt required to be paid by law to the employee for the work they have performed in the previous weeks.
I don't want to see banks fail like any of you folks, but the reality is responsibility lies somewhere and that somewhere isn't in more FDIC insurance. Business management is just as culpable as the banking staff in maximizing profit and maintaining proper liquidity and insuring working capital is secure.
> but the reality is responsibility lies somewhere and that somewhere isn't in more FDIC insurance.
Yes, and this is why $20 BB from SVB investors, hit $0. The bank management and investors were did have to live up to that responsibility.
Should they have to do more? Yes. There should be compensation clawbacks from the C-suite over the last 5 years or something. Lets see where this goes.
That’s simplistic thinking. The majority of those businesses would not have been able to pay staff and there would have been many redundant “average guys on the street”.
Perhaps, but perhaps the simplistic thinking is that the bailout changes anything. Are businesses which are trying to meet payroll now running a buffer in multiple banks? Are they securing the future of their employees by making sure they can meet payroll in an emergency? Probably not and as a result they didn't learn anything from the experience.
The truth is, this is the tip of the iceberg. Don't be sailing on the Titanic since you have been warned.
