Best thing is to add tests if possible to make sure your code doesn’t lose the added functionality.

Why should you use that?

Which you manually need to enable, which almost no-one does, which only work on one device and not on multiple devices like WhatsApp and Signal (which essentially renders the feature useless), and which is not possible for group chats.

I am not a big WhatsApp fan, Signal and Matrix are clearly better from a privacy perspective, e.g. because of the meta data.
And while it’s true what you wrote, it still doesn’t explain my question / counter my argument. WhatsApp is, no matter how much I disliked Facebook / Meta, having better privacy. All messages are end-to-end encrypted and can’t be returned to anyone, while most chats in Telegram aren’t end-to-end encrypted. Telegram often doesn’t give out any chats, but they are capable of doing so and could change their policies at any time.

That logic is bogus. I can’t say the same about WhatsApp because WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. They can’t give you any message data because they literally don’t own it.
Telegram, on the other hand, does have all the messages. They just refuse to give it to authorities. But they could change that at any point and just start giving the data, while in WhatsApp, that’s not possible by design.

How the fuck is Telegram after WhatsApp?? Telegram has some of the worst privacy while WhatsApp is at least end to end encrypted.

I honestly don’t see a single downside, as long as it’s modularised, maintainable and with clean APIs. And e.g. with a configuration module: The place where I’ve experienced this was a place where bigger parts of the configuration module were classes to build specific custom tree configurations. And if one module would just save what should happen at the change of each entry (and not save that with that entry), it would need to duplicate the whole structure and map it to the entries, which is ugly. It just makes sense to put those strongly related configurational things into one configuration module which provides an easy API (one method for changing and one for retrieving a config element after constructing it and adding other modules).

This is the one thing where my opinion might be highly unpopular, but I don’t see circular dependencies as something bad. If you write really structured modularised code, and just use the APIs of the different modules, it is completely fine to have different modules all depend on each other. At least in object oriented programming, using this approach that’s almost guaranteed to happen.
E.g. imagine a configuration module: Other modules need access to the configuration module to get the different entry values, but the configuration module needs access to other modules to change specific stuff if you change a configuration entry. Of course you could separate that module into one data part and one action part changing the data and doing stuff in other modules, but if you use many modules like that, this will just become even more complicated and lead to duplicated structures (e.g. a specific data tree plus the exact same tree for actions) which would be cleaner if it was directly in the same module.
Or a different example: An (e.g. discord) bot which is connected in one module, and both messages to the bot can lead to the module getting informations from other modules and actions in other modules can trigger the bot, leading to them depending on each other.

Oh, I mean I was talking about Open Source projects. If you just work privately and don’t say at some kind of central place (like a Discord or Matrix server) on what you’re working on, then it can easily happen that just two people do that at the same time without knowing of each other.

Merge conflict in general is fine

What’s really bad is if someone drastically changed the implementation of something which you’ve also changed and if you completely need to rework it…

This is awesome, but you should have used the crosspost function instead of making a new post with the old post as the URL

Yeah, in such a situation you should always try to compare the standards, look at the userbases and suddenly there are only very few that actually make sense. If everyone just does this, one standard will eventually crystalise as the one to use (or at least depending on the situation). Character encoding is an interesting example, because nowadays (almost) everything just uses UTF-8, despite there having been many.

I wish you best of luck doing that (when you want to(?)); I hope you’ll be able to get a good job in a field that you enjoy to work within.

I’m genuinely just really sorry. 104 stars is awesome for a hobby project, and if she isn’t, I’m proud of that and happy for you :)
But yeah, I’m sorry that she hasn’t appreciated that and reacted in a nice way… and besides that, obviously coding open source is something good for job prospects.

Yeah, this is the third or so post that’s super old and suddenly resurfaced… kind of funny haha, but I don’t find it bad.

I’m 21, but of all my friends (using Linux, Windows and macOS) I think no-one would say that UI is the strength of Windows and weakness of macOS.

To be fair, your comment sounds like you’re (rather) accustomed to Windows. Every operating system works differently, has different settings, etc. and you need to get used to their own way how you do stuff. If you come from Windows to macOS and expect it to be the same and be against every difference, yeah, you’ll think Windows has the better UI.

Finally

Real Dark Mode

I haven’t seen the linux packet managers which are absolutely essential on Linux…

Damn, the take that macOS had worse UI than Windows is really something haha

This is awesome