The Threadiverse is growing again, this time offering an effort to build a new Lemmy replacement from scratch, with API compatibility.

Seems like an interesting effort. A developer is building an alternative Java-based backend to Lemmy’s Rust-based one, with the goal of building in a handful of different features. The dev is looking at using this compatibility to migrate their instance over to the new platform, while allowing the community to use their apps of choice.

    • Rooki@lemmy.worldEnglish
      0·
      10 months ago

      If you say the function should only recieve one argument and returns always boolean. It is predictable to only allow the wanted args and forces you to return a boolean.

      For example in a less predictable programming language e.g. Python: I can do all above but python does not stop anyone to put more or less arguments to a function, or a developer not adding typehints or not complying to them and return a string instead of a boolean.

      But i had it wrong rust is similar to java on that part.

      But still it is a lot more popular and easier to start with. So there will be a lot more contributor to sublinks than lemmy ever had.

      • mea_rah@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        10 months ago

        Well in that sense Rust is even more predictable than Java. In Java you can always get back exception that bubbled up the stack. Rust function would in that case return Result that you need to handle somehow before getting the value.

        • Rooki@lemmy.worldEnglish
          0·
          10 months ago

          That i dont understand? How can it be a result that i need to handle? If its not correct than java will throw an error. ( As expected, shit in shit out )

          • kattenluik@feddit.nlEnglish
            0·
            10 months ago

            It’s a great and probably the best error system I’ve seen, instead of just throwing errors and having bulky try catch statements and such there’s just a result type.

            Say you have a function that returns a boolean in which something could error, the function would return a Result<bool, Error> and that’s it. Calling the function you can choose to do anything you want with that possible Error, including ignoring it or logging or anything you could want.

            It’s extremely simple.

            • uranibaba@lemmy.worldEnglish
              0·
              10 months ago

              If I except a boolean, there is an error and get a Result, is Result an object? How do I know if I get a bool or error?

              • mea_rah@lemmy.worldEnglish
                0·
                10 months ago

                You always get a Result. On that result you can call result.unwrap() (give me the bool or crash) or result.unwrap_or_default() (give me bool or false if there was error) or any other way you can think of. The point is that Rust won’t let you get value out of that Result until you somehow didn’t handle possible failure. If function does not return Result and returns just value directly, you (as a function caller) are guaranteed to always get a value, you can rely on there not being a failure that the function didn’t handle internally.

                • kameecoding@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  01·
                  10 months ago

                  That’s a kinda terrible way to do it compared to letting it bubble up to the global error handler.

                  You can also use optional in java if you want a similar pattern but that only makes sense for stuff where it’s not guaranteed that you get back the data you want such as db or web fetch