This is about the one thing where SQL is a badly designed language, and you should use a frontend that forces you to write your queries in the order (table, filter, columns) for consistency.

UPDATE table_name WHERE y = $3 SET w = $1, x = $2, z = $4 RETURNING *
FROM table_name SELECT w, x, y, z

I've only ever seen two parts of git that could arguably be called unintuitive, and they both got fixes:

• git reset seems to do 2 unrelated things for some people. Nowadays git restore exists.
• the inconsistent difference between a..b and a...b commit ranges in various commands. This is admittedly obscure enough that I would have to look up the manual half the time anyway.
• I suppose we could call the fact that man git foo didn't used to work unintuitive I guess.

The tooling to integrate git submodule into normal tree operations could be improved though. But nowadays there's git subtree for all the people who want to do it wrong but easily.

The only reason people complain so much about git is that it's the only VCS that's actually widely used anymore. All the others have worse problems, but there's nobody left to complain about them.

The problem is that there's a severe hole in the ABCs: there is no distinction between "container whose elements are mutable" and "container whose elements and size are mutable".

(related, there's no distinction for supporting slice operations or not, e.g. deque)

Speed is far from the only thing that matters in terminal emulators though. Correctness is critical.

The only terminals in which I have any confidence of correctness are xterm and pangoterm. And I suppose technically the BEL-for-ST extension is incorrect even there, but we have to live with that and a workaround is available.

A lot of terminal emulators end up hard-coding a handful of common sequences, and fail to correctly ignore sequences they don't implement. And worse, many go on to implement sequences that cannot be correctly handled.

One simple example that usually fails: \e!!F. More nasty, however, are the ones that ignore intermediaries and execute some unrelated command instead.

I can't be bothered to pick apart specific terminals anymore. Most don't even know what an IR is.

1, Don't target X11 specifically these days. Yes a lot of people still use it or at least support it in a backward-compatible manner, but Wayland is only increasing.

2, Don't fear the use of libraries. SDL and GTK, being C-based, should both be feasible from assembly; at most you might want to build a C program that dumps constants (if -dM doesn't suffice) and struct offsets (if you don't want to hard-code them).

Even logging can sometimes be enough to hide the heisgenbug.

Logging to a file descriptor can sometimes be avoided by logging to memory (which for crash-safety includes the possibility of an mmap'ed file, since the kernel will just take care of them as long as the whole system doesn't go down). But logging from every thread to a single section of memory can also be problematic (even without mutexes, atomics can be expensive and certainly have side-effects) - sometimes you need a separate per-thread log, and combine in the log-reader tool.

I don't remember the last time I used ctrl-C. It's always select or "+y.

Some languages don't even support linking at all. Interpreted languages often dispatch everything by name without any relocations, which is obviously horrible. And some compiled languages only support translating the whole program (or at least, whole binary - looking at you, Rust!) at once. Do note that "static linking" has shades of meaning: it applies to "link multiple objects into a binary", but often that it excluded from the discussion in favor of just "use a .a instead of a .so".

Dynamic linking supports much faster development cycle than static linking (which is faster than whole-binary-at-once), at the cost of slightly slower runtime (but the location of that slowness can be controlled, if you actually care, and can easily be kept out of hot paths). It is of particularly high value for security updates, but we all known most developers don't care about security so I'm talking about annoyance instead. Some realistic numbers here: dynamic linking might be "rebuild in 0.3 seconds" vs static linking "rebuild in 3 seconds" vs no linking "rebuild in 30 seconds".

Dynamic linking is generally more reliable against long-term system changes. For example, it is impossible to run old statically-linked versions of bash 3.2 anymore on a modern distro (something about an incompatible locale format?), whereas the dynamically linked versions work just fine (assuming the libraries are installed, which is a reasonable assumption). Keep in mind that "just run everything in a container" isn't a solution because somebody has to maintain the distro inside the container.

Unfortunately, a lot of programmers lack basic competence and therefore have trouble setting up dynamic linking. If you really need frobbing, there's nothing wrong with RPATH if you're not setuid or similar (and even if you are, absolute root-owned paths are safe - a reasonable restriction since setuid will require more than just extracting a tarball anyway).

Even if you do use static linking, you should NEVER statically link to libc, and probably not to libstdc++ either. There are just too many things that can go wrong when you given up on the notion of "single source of truth". If you actually read the man pages for the tools you're using this is very easy to do, but a lack of such basic abilities is common among proponents of static linking.

Again, keep in mind that "just run everything in a container" isn't a solution because somebody has to maintain the distro inside the container.

The big question these days should not be "static or dynamic linking" but "dynamic linking with or without semantic interposition?" Apple's broken "two level namespaces" is closely related but also prevents symbol migration, and is really aimed at people who forgot to use -fvisibility=hidden.

As a practical matter it is likely to break somebody's unit tests.

If there's an alternative approach that you want people to use in their unit tests, go ahead and break it. If there isn't, but you're only doing such breakage rarely and it's reasonable for their unit tests to be updated in a way that works with both versions of your library, do it cautiously. Otherwise, only do it if you own the universe and you hate future debuggers.

Stop reinventing the wheel.

Major translation systems like gettext (especially the GNU variant) have decades of tooling built up for "merging" and all sorts of other operations.

Even if you don't want to use their binary format at runtime, their tooling is still worth it.

Write-up is highly Windows-centric (though not irrelevant elsewhere).

One thing that is regretfully ignored in discussions of async, tasks, green threads, etc. is that there is no support/consideration for native (reliable/efficient) thread-local variables. If you're lucky you'll get a warning about "don't use them".

For an extension like this - unlike most prior extensions - you're best off with essentially an entirely separately compiled copy of the program/library. So IFUNC is a poor fit, even with peer optimization.