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)

You've clearly thought about the problem, so the solutions should be relatively obvious. Some less obvious ones:

• It is impossible to make TCP reliable no matter how hard you try, because anybody can inject an RST flag at any time and cut off your connections (this isn't theoretical, it's actually quite common for long-lived gaming connections). That leaves UDP, for which there are several reliability layers, but most of them are not battle-tested - remember, TCP is most notable for congestion-control! HTTP3 is probably the only viable choice at scale, but beware that many implementations are very bad (e.g. not even supporting recvmmsg/sendmmsg which are critical for performance unlike with TCP; note the extra m)
• If you don't encrypt all your packets, you will have random middleware mess with their data. Think at least a little about key rotation.
• To avoid application-centric DoS, make sure the client always does "more" than the server; this extends to e.g. packet sizes.
• Prefer to ultimately define things in data, not code (e.g. network packet layouts). Don't be afraid to write several bespoke code-generators; many real-world serialization formats in particular have unacceptable tradeoffs. Make sure the core code doesn't care about the details (e.g. make every packet physically variable-length even if logically it is always fixed-length; you can also normalize zero-padding at this level for future compatibility. I advise against delta-compression at this level because that's extra processing you don't need).
• Make sure the client only has to connect to a single server. If you have multiple servers internally, have a thin bouncer/proxy that forwards packets appropriately. This also has benefits for the inevitable DDoS attacks.
• Latency is a bitch and has far-ranging effects, though this is highly dependent on not just genre but also UI. For example "hold down a key to move continuously through the world" is problematic whereas "click to move to a location" is not.
• Beware quadratic complexity, e.g. if every player must send a location update to every player.
• Think not only about the database, but how to back up the database and how to roll back in case of catastrophe or exploit. An append-only flat file has a lot going for it; only periodic repacking is needed and you can keep the old version for a while with a guarantee that it'll replay to identical state to the initial version of the new file. Of course, the best state is no state at all. You will need to consider the notion of "transaction" at many levels, including scripting (you must give me 20 bear asses for me to give), trading between players, etc.
• You will have abuse in chat. You will also have cybersex. It's possible to deal with this in a privacy-preserving way by merely signing chat, not logging it, so the player can present evidence only if they wish, but there are a lot of concerns about e.g. replays, selective message subsets, etc.
• There will be bots, especially if the official client isn't good enough.
• It's $CURRENTYEAR; write code for IPv6 exclusively. There are sockopts for transparently handling legacy IPv4 clients.
• Client IP address is private information. It is also the only way to deal with certain kinds of abuse. Sometimes, you just have to block all of Poland.
• Note that routing in parts of the world is really bad. Sometimes setting up your own dedicated connection chain between datacenters can improve performance by orders of magnitude, rather than letting clients use whatever their ISP says. If nesting proxies be sure to correctly validate IPs.
• Life is simpler if internal stuff listens on a separate port than external stuff, but still verify your peer. IP whitelisting is useless except for localhost (which, mind, is all of 127.0.0.0/8 for IPv4 - about the only time IPv4 is actually useful rather than a mere mirage).

There's tends to be one major difference between games and non-game applications, so toolkits designed for one are often quite unsuitable for the other.

A game generally performs logic to paint the whole window, every frame, with at most some framerate-limiting in "paused" states. This burns power but is steady and often tries hard to reduce latency.

An application generally tries to paint as little of the window as possible, as rarely as possible. Reducing video bandwidth means using a lot less power, but can involve variable loads so sometimes latency gets pushed down to "it would be nice".

Notably, the implications of the 4-way choice between {tearing, vsync, double-buffer, triple-buffer} looks very different between those two - and so does the question of "how do we use the GPU"?

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".