Learn about true Functional Reactive Programming and you’ll find that React breaks many of the guidelines/rules that the authors of FRP put forth. Take that observation for what it’s worth.
IMO, there is no one right way… but a functional (stateless/immutable) core with a functional reactive or imperative shell has been shown to eliminate whole classes of errors, make refactoring less painful, and makes dealing with state a lot more intuitive and easy to reason about.
The uncertainty has created something of an existential dilemma: Should network architects spend the billions of dollars required to wean themselves off quantum-vulnerable algorithms now, or should they prioritize their limited security budgets fighting more immediate threats such as ransomware and espionage attacks?
Yes. Governments should sue companies that get hacked back to the Stone Age.
Then, those companies will suddenly find it in their best interest financially to spend the money required to harden their tech stacks rather than throwing untold mountains of money into the AI firepit.
As a beginner, you’ll eventually run into enough issues with your code that you will start to ask “is there a better way?” My answer will be: yes. Strongly typed languages are FAR superior because they force you to make your code robust and eliminate most runtime errors by default. You’ll eventually come around (unless you’re in a company with a hack culture or are surrounded by hacks that don’t know any better).
Dynamic type systems are meant for beginner/toy languages. Hacks that don’t care about understanding their own code tend to use Python. Their code is often riddled with bugs that they are none-the-wiser about.
If you write your code in Python, you might as well admit that you don’t care to understand what your code is actually doing.
It’s weird when you post a link with no explanation whatsoever about what the software is:
Text files are nowadays usually encoded in Unicode, and may consist of very different scripts – from Latin letters to Chinese Hanzi –, with many kinds of special characters – accents, right-to-left writing marks, hyphens, Roman numbers, and much more. But the POSIX platform APIs for text do not contain adequate functions for dealing with particular properties of many Unicode characters. In fact, the POSIX APIs for text have several assumptions at their base which don’t hold for Unicode text. This library provides functions for manipulating Unicode strings and for manipulating C strings according to the Unicode standard.
Details
This library consists of the following parts: <unistr.h> elementary string functions <uniconv.h> conversion from/to legacy > encodings <unistdio.h> formatted output to > strings <uniname.h> character names <unictype.h> character classification and properties <uniwidth.h> string width when using nonproportional fonts <uniwbrk.h> word breaks <unilbrk.h> line breaking algorithm <uninorm.h> normalization (composition and decomposition) <unicase.h> case folding <uniregex.h> regular expressions (not yet implemented)
Who needs libunistring?
libunistring is for you if your application involves non-trivial text processing, such as upper/lower case conversions, line breaking, operations on words, or more advanced analysis of text. Text provided by the user can, in general, contain characters of all kinds of scripts. The text processing functions provided by this library handle all scripts and all languages.
libunistring is for you if your application already uses the ISO C / POSIX <ctype.h>, <wctype.h> functions and the text it operates on is provided by the user and can be in any language.
libunistring is also for you if your application uses Unicode strings as internal in-memory representation.
Because most people are lazy hacks.
I’m not sure. Probably not.
There are very few that pass the continuous time FRP test (according to Conal). The only ones I’ve found that keep that ideological purity are (mostly) Halogen (or Deku) in the Purescript ecosystem and reactive banana in the Haskell ecosystem.