Join devRant
Do all the things like
++ or -- rants, post your own rants, comment on others' rants and build your customized dev avatar
Sign Up
Pipeless API
From the creators of devRant, Pipeless lets you power real-time personalized recommendations and activity feeds using a simple API
Learn More
-
Designers designed a component with a "doubleDigits" property, that changes the text size if there's two digits.
After I implement it, I get "hey it doesn't look good if I type three digits".
Fuck you.4 -
Do you think being a great software engineer is simply hard work and passion?
Or there is also a component of natural affinity, certain personality traits, etc.48 -
Why the fuck do managers think beacuse a component has been build by another developer a shit ton of time ago, we can still reuse that fucking code.
For fucks sake, I had to rebuild a whole fucking map component that needed contextual filter and the fuckers just add extra functionality without consulting me. And gave me a tight schedule bc the customer, who btw disappeared for 6 months, will be mad for wasting his precious fucking time.
Fuck these clients.11 -
I AM TIRED
warning: this rant is going to be full of negativity , CAPS, and cursing.
People always think and they always write that programming is an analytical profession. IF YOU CANNOT THINK IN AN ANALYTICAL WAY THIS JOB IS NOT FOR YOU! But the reality could not be farther from the truth.
A LOT of people in this field whether they're technical people or otherwise, just lack any kind of reasoning or "ANALYTICAL" thinking skills. If anything, a lot of of them are delusional and/or they just care about looking COOL. "Because programming is like getting paid to solve puzzles" *insert stupid retarded laugh here*.
A lot of devs out there just read a book or two and read a Medium article by another wannabe, now think they're hot shit. They know what they're doing. They're the gods of "clean" and "modular" design and all companies should be in AWE of their skills paralleled only by those of deities!
Everyone out there and their Neanderthal ancestor from start-up founders to developers think they're the next Google/Amazon/Facebook/*insert fancy shitty tech company*.
Founder? THEY WANT TO MOVE FAST AND GET TO MARKET FAST WITH STUPID DEADLINES! even if it's not necessary. Why? BECAUSE YOU INFERIOR DEVELOPER HAVE NOT READ THE STUPID HOT PILE OF GARBAGE I READ ONLINE BY THE POEPLE I BLINDLY COPY! "IF YOU'RE NOT EMBARRASSED BY THE FIRST VERSION OF YOU APP, YOU DID SOMETHING WRONG" - someone at Amazon.
Well you delusional brainless piece of stupidity, YOU ARE NOT AMAZON. THE FIRST VERSION THAT THIS AMAZON FOUNDER IS EMBARRASSED ABOUT IS WHAT YOU JERK OFF TO AT NIGHT! IT IS WHAT YOU DREAM ABOUT HAVING!
And oh let's not forget the tech stacks that make absolutely no fucking sense and are just a pile of glue and abstraction levels on top of abstraction levels that are being used everywhere. Why? BECAUSE GOOGLE DOES IT THAT WAY DUH!! And when Google (or any other fancy shit company) changes it, the old shitty tech stack that by some miracle you got to work and everyone is writing in, is now all of a sudden OBSOLETE! IT IS OLD. NO ONE IS WRITING SHIT IN THAT ANYMORE!
And oh my god do I get a PTSD every time I hear a stupid fucker saying shit like "clean architecture" "clean shit" "best practice". Because I have yet to see someone whose sentences HAVE TO HAVE one of these words in them, that actually writes anything decent. They say this shit because of some garbage article they read online and in reality when you look at their code it is hot heap of horseshit after eating something rancid. NOTHING IS CLEAN ABOUT IT. NOTHING IS DONE RIGHT. AND OH GOD IF THAT PERSON WAS YOUR TECH MANAGER AND YOU HAVE TO LISTEN TO THEM RUNNING THEIR SHITHOLE ABOUT HOW YOUR SIMPLE CODE IS "NOT CLEAN". And when you think that there might be a valid reason to why they're doing things that way, you get an answer of someone in an interview who's been asked about something they don't know, but they're trying to BS their way to sounding smart and knowledgable. 0 logic 0 reason 0 brain.
Let me give you a couple of examples from my unfortunate encounters in the land of the delusional.
I was working at this start up which is fairly successful and there was this guy responsible for developing the front-end of their website using ReactJS and they're using Redux (WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS TO ELIMINATE PASSING ATTRIBUTES FOR THE PURPOSE OF PASSING THEM DOWN THE COMPONENT HIERARCHY AGIAN). This guy kept ranting about their quality and their shit every single time we had a conversation about the code while I was getting to know everything. Also keep in mind he was the one who decided to use Redux. Low and behold there was this component which has THIRTY MOTHERFUCKING SEVEN PROPERTIES WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE IS BE PASSED DOWN AGAIN LIKE 3 TO 4 TIMES!.
This stupid shit kept telling me to write code in a "functional" style. AND ALL HE KNOWS ABOUT FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING IS USING MAP, FILTER, REDUCE! And says shit like "WE DONT NEED UNIT TESTS BECAUSE FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING HAS NO ERRORS!" Later on I found that he read a book about functional programming in JS and now he fucking thinks he knows what functional programming is! Oh I forgot to mention that the body of his "maps" is like 70 fucking lines of code!
Another fin-tech company I worked at had a quote from Machiavelli's The Prince on EACH FUCKING DESK:
"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things."
MOTHERFUCKER! NEW ORDER OF THINGS? THERE 10 OTHER COMPANIES DOING THE SAME SHIT ALREADY!
And the one that got on my nerves as a space lover. Is a quote from Kennedy's speech about going to the moon in the 60s "We choose to go to the moon and do the hard things ..."
YOU FUCKING DELUSIONAL CUNT! YOU THINK BUILDING YOUR SHITTY COPY PASTED START UP IS COMPARABLE TO GOING TO THE MOON IN THE 60S?
I am just tired of all those fuckers.13 -
Client says the styling of a particular component on their website is wrong. It looks fine to me. They can't give me an example of how it should look, or tell me what's wrong with the way it looks currently, but they want me to fix it.3
-
So we've got a gif that doesn't show up in our React Native application. Of course, the designers assume it's me: "are you sure the gif is in the codebase? how are you using it in your component"? yeah ok boomer. I'm like, look at this other gif, works fine. "oh" So I tell them, double check the export options on how you are building the gif, maybe there is something there. so now they are asking ME for those export options. I'M A DEV, NOT A DESIGNER, DO YOUR JOB AND FIGURE IT OUT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT PROGRAM YOU ARE USING
oh as an aside, I was putting up a website for a client and they are like "my logo is quite similar to many others, is this something to worry about legally?" OH, SO NOW I'M A LAWYER TOO??!!?!? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE GOOGLE IS LITERALLY IN FRONT OF YOU
why do people continually think just because we can code we are fucking designers / lawyers / astronauts
/ god?
man this pisses me off - i think of that draw red lines with blue ink expert video, in the end, just smile and nod: "i can do... absolutely anything... trust me, I'm an expert"4 -
Sifting through a React class component that is over 1000 lines long.
When was this written? Not in the 1950s like you might think. Just over 3 months ago.
Kill me.7 -
A legacy custom made WordPress Theme.
Old developer made main styling sheet with 8000+ lines of code with no component separation. -
Question - is this meaningful or is this retarded?
if
2*3 = 6
2*2 = 4
2*1 = 2
2*0 = 0
2*-1 = -2
then why doesnt this work?
6/3 = 2
6/2 = 3
6/1 = 6
6/0 = 0
6/-1 = -6
if n/0 is forbidden and 1/n returns the inverse of n, why shouldn't zero be its own inverse?
If we're talking "0" as in an infinitely precise definition of zero, then 1/n (where n is arbitrarily close to 0), then the result is an arbitrarily large answer, close to infinite, because any floating point number beneath zero (like an infinitely precise approximation of zero) when inverted, produces a number equal to or greater than 1.
If the multiplicative identity, 1, covers the entire set of integers, then why shouldn't division by zero be the inverse of the multiplicative identity, excluding the entire set? It ONLY returns 0, while anything n*1 ONLY returns n.
This puts even the multiplicative identity in the set covered by its inverse.
Ergo, division by zero produces either 0 or infinity. When theres an infinity in an formula, it sometimes indicates theres been
some misunderstanding or the system isn't fully understood. The simpler approach here would be to say therefore the answer is
not infinity, but zero. Now 'simpler' doesn't always mean "correct", only more elegant.
But if we represent the result of a division as BOTH an integer and mantissa
component, e.x
1.234567 or 0.1234567,
i.e. a float, we can say the integer component is the quotient, and the mantissa
is the remainder.
Logically it makes sense then that division by zero is equivalent to taking the numerator, and leaving it "undistributed".
I.e. shunting it to the remainder, and leaving the quotient as zero.
If we treat this as equivalent of an inversion, we can effectively represent the quotient from denominators of n/0 as 1/n
Meaning even 1/0 has a representation, it just happens to be 0.000...
Therefore
(n * (n/0)) = 1
the multiplicative identity
because
(n* (n/0)) == (n * ( 1/n ))
People who math. Is this a yea or nay in your book?25 -
Killing people is bad. But, there should be a law to allow killing people who don't write proper unit tests for their code. And also those "team leaders" who approve and merge code without unit tests.
Little backstory. Starts with a question.
What is the most critical part of a quoting tool (tool for resellers to set discounts and margins and create quotations)? The calculations, right?
If one formula is incorrect in one use case, people lose real money. This is the component which the user should be able to trust 100%. Right?
Okay. So this team was supposed to create a calculation engine to support all these calculations. The development was done, and the system was given to the QA team. For the last two months, the QA team finds bugs and assigns those to the development team and the development team fix those and assigns it back to the QA team. But then the QA team realizes that something else has been broken, a different calculation.
Upon investigation, today, I found out that the developers did not write a single unit test for the entire engine. There are at least 2000 different test cases involving the formulas and the QA team was doing all of that manually.
Now, Our continuous integration tool mandates coverage of 75%. What the developer did was to write a dummy test case, so that the entire code was covered.
I really really really really really think that developers should write unit tests, and proper unit tests, for each of the code lines (or, “logical blocks of code”) they write.20 -
If you write a blog post on how to build “some-component” and the first step in your article is to run “npm install framework-some-component”…
I hope you die in a fire. -
Nothing like client requesting "Hey can you add a virus scan for every goddamn file in the pipeline ? (We don't know what antivirus software you can use, neither do we know what are the consequences of this virus scan failing. We also don't know why a system admin is not doing this server wide instead of a software Dev doing it for this specific individual component. Heck we don't even know why do we need the virus scan in the first place) You might need to think 'outside the box'. Let's hope this is done by 12th Jan. Regards" on a Friday goddamn night
They probably even expect me to write my own antivirus software instead of paying for one
Why is industry like this ? Is there really any polite way to deny this ?15 -
To the reactjs-centered fucks who develop the popular web component viewing software called storybook: have you ever heard about semver?
89 alpha/beta/rc releases for a minor update 6.3 -> 6.4 with "100's of fixes and enhancements" "in preparation of the HUGE 7.0 release". Gee I wonder will it have 1000's of bugfixes? How bug-ridden is this software?
Every minor upgrade since 5.x is backwards-incompatible and requires a day of frustration finding out in how many more fucking NPM packages you split your codebase just because it's cool. I know move fast and break things, but some of us have other things to do than resolving node_modules incompatibilities you know. "No just hit 'npx sb upgrade' you say". I did, I really did! And the browser showed a blank screen of death with tons of cryptic React errors, it really did! Thank God you abstracted away all your dependencies in that sb command, now you can't even read the docs about what could have gone wrong with a specific sub-package. You have @storybook/html but the docs redirect to React pages, so good luck if you use something else
This is so sad... like.. the IDEA of storybook is great. But why did faith put the capacity to develop such a tool into the hands of people who think the world centers around React and JSX.. HTML should have been the default, and then you build on top of that for your fav framework, not the other way around -
i had an epiphany today, in a discussion with the software architect of our new project.
i'm having the epic job to design & implement a prototype for a C++ library in a new software project and collected some inspiration in our "old" software, where i'm maintaining the module that fulfills the same functionality (i thought). i've been maintaining this module for around a year now. i analyzed the different features and stuff to consider and created a partial model of the new library.
when i showed it to the architect today, he was like "oh my god, no no no, you don't need all this functionality, this shall not be part of the new library!"
this was the moment when i realized how deeply fucked up the code base of the old module is.
imagine it like this:
you want to automate the process of making yourself a good ol' cup of coffee.
the reasonable thing would be to have
- a smart water boiler where you set parameters water temperature and amount of water to be fetched from the water supply
- a smart coffee bean grinder where you can set type of beans, amount of beans and grinding fineness
- a component where water and ground coffee are joined to brew the coffee, where parameters like duration, pressure etc. are set
- a milk tank where amount of milk, desired temperature and duration / speed of foaming can be set
- a sugar dispenser where amount of applied sugar can be set
- optionally, additional modules with spices, syrup, ice cubes, whatever for your very personal coffee experience
on requesting a coffee, you would then configure and orchestrate all components to your wishes to make you a fine cup of coffee. you can also add routines like "makeCappucchino()", "makeEspresso()", or whatever.
our software is not like this.
it is like this:
- a smart water boiler consisting of submodules that know how to cook water for e.g. "cappucchino with sugar" or for "espresso without sugar, but with milk and ice cubes"
- 5 smart bean grinders that know how to grind beans for e.g. cappucchino, espresso, latte macchiato and for 73ml of water preheated to 82°C
- a very smart sugar dispenser that knows how to add sugar to 95, 98 and 100°C coffee and to coffee made of BOTH coffee arabica AND coffee robusta beans.
etc. etc., i think you're getting the gist.
when i realized this, it was like, right in front of my eyes, this terrible pattern emerged like a foul, corrupted caleidoscope of chaos, through the whole code base of this module.
i've already known how rotten from the core this code base is, but today i've actually identified a really bad pattern that i hadn't realized before. the whole architecture is so bloated that it is hard to have an overview of the whole thing. and it would require a LOT of refactoring to repair this pattern.
but i guess it would also be infinitely satisfying because i could probably reduce the code base for 30% or something...
but unfortunately, this is never going to happen, because screw refactoring.
it's a great feeling to start this new library from scratch, tho...6 -
I can now appreciate some design decisions behind react-redux after witnessing some angular OOP clusterfuck.
I am sure there is some clean/correct way to code in angular, but everyone is treating angular as java.
Some angular application (the one I have to work with) is littered with network calls. It's difficult to spot duplicates. People usually resolve promises everywhere. In services, in a top-level component, or in for loops. In react, people use apollo/redux-query or redux-saga to handle network calls. Since these libraries prevent duplicate network calls internally and reassigning apollo network call function or redux action function is always useless, it's easy to spot all network calls in a component tree.
In angular, it's difficult to trace data mutations when data can be updated everywhere. In react, you can easily find UI state updates by tracing state hooks/dispatch/apollo usages.
In angular, it's difficult to trace data pipeline. Since everything is imperative by default, people need to add update functions in data subscriptions. With all the littered mutations. Soon you will lose track of what the fuck is going on.
I hope angular get the agonizing death it deserves and fuck everyone who codes JS OOP clusterfuck UI.11 -
Why the fuck do consultants / noob types LOVE using fucking props in react components. This app is complex, just make a fucking redux slice and use that. I'm not passing 23904 props to a component to get it to render. God13
-
Anyone know why calling the "memo" function on a React component or using the "useMemo" hook is widely accepted to be called "memoization", when the name itself derives from an existing English verb which actually means what the function does? Why are we artificially creating jargon?6
-
In most businesses, self-proclaimed full-stack teams are usually more back-end leaning as historically the need to use JS more extensively has imposed itself on back-end-only teams (that used to handle some basic HTML/CSS/JS/bootstrap on the side). This is something I witnessed over the years in 4 projects.
Back-end developers looking for a good JS framework will inevitably land on the triad of Vue, React and Angular, elegant solutions for SPA's. These frameworks are way more permissive than traditional back-end MVC frameworks (Dotnet core, Symfony, Spring boot), meaning it is easy to get something that looks like it's working even when it is not "right" (=idiomatic, unit-testable, maintainable).
They then use components as if they were simple HTML elements injecting the initial state via attributes (props), skip event handling and immediately add state store libraries (Vuex, Redux). They aren't aware that updating a single prop in an object with 1000 keys passed as prop will be nefarious for rendering performance. They also read something about SSR and immediately add Next.js or Nuxt.js, a custom Node express.js proxy and npm install a ton of "ecosystem" modules like webpack loaders that will become abandonware in a year.
After 6 months you get: 3 basic forms with a few fields, regressions, 2MB of JS, missing basic a11y, unmaintainable translation files & business logic scattered across components, an "outdated" stack that logs 20 deprecation notices on npm install, a component library that is hard to unit-test, validate and update, completely vendor-& version locked in and hundreds of thousands of wasted dollars.
I empathize with the back-end devs: JS frameworks should not brand themselves as "simple" or "one-size-fits-all" solutions. They should not treat their audience as if it were fully aware and able to use concepts of composition, immutability, and custom "hooks" paired with the quirks of JS, and especially WHEN they are a good fit. -
I implore ANYONE... please...
Have you EVER written a SINGLE Jest test that didn't have some sort of bullshit spewing stuff like this:
"ReferenceError: You are trying to `import` a file after the Jest environment has been torn down."
"Warning: React.createElement: type is invalid -- expected a string (for built-in components) or a class/function (for composite components) but got: object. You likely forgot to export your component from the file it's defined in, or you might have mixed up default and named imports."
and yet running on a device, features work flawlessly and quite well, no errors or even warnings in sight logged
This is the most fragile pile of garbage I have ever seen.
I hate this.
inb4 your stupid ass todo boilerplate garbage you wrote tests for in freshman year. i'm talking about a REAL app with HUNDREDS of components.
where the grownup testing tools at? it's a question I've still not answered after a year of fucking around with this framework2 -
Why useImperativeHandle in React is bad?
I have component A. I have component B which is a child of A.
I have button in component A that should change how component B is displayed.
Usual approach is to set state in A, change it upon click and pass that state as flag via props to B.
But there is another approach via exposing ref to component B using forwardRef() + useImperativeHandle().
And then calling method that belongs to B from A. Like this: bRef.current.changeDisplay()
https://stackoverflow.com/questions...
https://reactjs.org/docs/...
https://github.com/reactjs/...
People on SoF and Docs say that the first way is preferrable. But no one explain why.
Does anyone know why calling child method from parent is considered bad?4 -
A year ago I built my first todo, not from a tutorial, but using basic libraries and nw.js, and doing basic dom manipulations.
It had drag n drop, icons, and basic saving and loading. And I was satisfied.
Since then I've been working odd jobs.
And today I've decided to stretch out a bit, and build a basic airtable clone, because I think I can.
And also because I hate anything without an offline option.
First thing I realized was I wasn't about to duplicate all the features of a spreadsheet from scratch. I'd need a base to work from.
I spent about an hour looking.
Core features needed would be trivial serialization or saving/loading.
Proper event support for when a cell, row, or column changed, or was selected. Necessary for triggering validation and serialization/saving.
Custom column types.
Embedding html in cells.
Reorderable columns
Optional but nice to have:
Changeable column width and row height.
Drag and drop on rows and columns.
Right click menu support out of the box.
After that hour I had a few I wanted to test.
And started looking at frameworks to support the SPA aspects.
Both mithril and riot have minimal router support. But theres also a ton of other leightweight frameworks and libraries worthy of prototyping in, solid, marko, svelte, etc.
I didn't want to futz with lots of overhead, babeling/gulping/grunting/webpacking or any complex configuration-over-convention.
Didn't care for dom vs shadow dom. Its a prototype not a startup.
And I didn't care to do it the "right way". Learning curve here was antithesis to experimenting. I was trying to get away from plugin, configuration-over-convention, astronaut architecture, monolithic frameworks, the works.
Could I import the library without five dozen dependancies and learning four different tools before getting to hello world?
"But if you know IJK then its quick to get started!", except I don't, so it won't. I didn't want that.
Could I get cheap component-oriented designs?
Was I managing complex state embedded in a monolith that took over the entire layout and conventions of my code, like the world balanced on the back of a turtle?
Did it obscure the dom and state, and the standard way of doing things or *compliment* those?
As for validation, theres a number of vanilla libraries, one of which treats validation similar to unit testing, which seems kinda novel.
For presentation and backend I could do NW.JS, which would remove some of the complications, by putting everything in one script. Or if I wanted to make it a web backend, and avoid writing it in something that ran like a potato strapped to a nuclear rocket (visual studio), I could skip TS and go with python and quart, an async variation of flask.
This has the advantage that using something thats *not* JS, namely python, for interacting with a proper database, and would allow self-hosting or putting it online so people can share data and access in real time with others.
And because I'm horrible, and do things the wrong way for convenience, I could use tailwind.
Because it pisses people off.
How easy (or hard) would it be to recreate a basic functional clone of the core of airtable?
I don't know, but I have feeling I'm going to find out!1 -
Can a React.JS expert help me to understand something?
In short, I would like to know what are the main differences between react version 15.6 and 17, in terms of browser issues, and component compatibility?
We have a legacy code base that is in version 15.6 and the team wants to upgrade it and I am attempting to argue with my dumb CTO to upgrade to version 17. However, I’m not versed in react, I'm just a PO and the CTO doesn't know anything but for some odd reason is adamant about staying on an older version. The developers gave me their opinion but I'm interested in an outside opinion.5 -
What's the worst part about testing React components? Using the equivalent of fucking stone tools to do your component integration tests! We got errors with no context and errors with no stack trace, just spewing out bullshit! A sample:
The classic "Can't access .root on unmounted test renderer"
The unforgettable and ALWAYS visible "Warning: An update to YourShittyComponent inside a test was not wrapped in act(...)."
We do love it!
Top Tags
Weekly Rant
View