Same, but given how seriously they take BC breaks, I don’t really see it happening. Well, at least we have mature tooling to avoid having horrible code in production code-bases.

Well, that’s historical, if PHP was being designed today, I think a lot of the things would look very different. As everything since version 7.x, this is a step in the right direction of making the language modern and safer to use.

Like, this is still PHP, both of these are equally valid:

<?php

function hello(string $name): string {
  return "Hello, {$name}!";
}

function hello($name) {
  return "Hello, $name!";
}

So anything that makes it possible to write a good, clean code is a great addition, IMO.

Asi bude lepší použít můj Lemmy účet (@rikudou@lemmings.world), tohle je můj blog a vesměs není použitelný na komentáře mimo moje vlastní příspěvky, nic jiného se mi tu nezobrazuje.

I’ll check it out, thanks!

I must admit I always forget XMPP exists (which seems to be a common trend). It doesn’t support e2e, right? That doesn’t really make it useful in modern times anymore (in my opinion).

Thanks! I’m not aware that any Fediverse software actually allows that, but hey, might be worth testing out what each software thinks about liking a like.

Kinda, but in a really weird way, nothing is getting standardized and everything is a de-facto standard (or not, especially Mastodon devs don’t really care about the rest of Fediverse), which is not good for development.

Taky veselé Velikonoce! :)

One of my favourite xkcd images! And yeah, creating another competing standard would suck, what’s needed is more of a slow evolution towards a sane standard.

Edit: Didn’t notice your edit before. Well, I think sending private messages has been part of social media when before it was called social media, so missing that functionality feels like it would unnecessarily hold the Fediverse back.

As for encryption, I believe it is needed in some form because stuff like GDPR and other privacy laws might as well destroy the Fediverse if some bureaucrat decides they want to look into it.

I didn’t! But now I do :) Joined!

Hmm, that build number would definitely be better! I tried adding another level (like 1.0.0.84) but that didn’t work. I’ll try it with the build numbers.

I wrote a GitHub workflow that transpiles it on release and tags each transpiled version, then pushes those tags to the repo. Packagist automatically fetches tags, so it gets them automatically.

For example, the tag v2.7.082.

You mean the blog post I wrote myself and published on my ActivityPub enabled blog? That kind of “spam bot”?