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
-
I. FUCKING. HATE. MOBILE. DEVELOPMENT.
I already manage the data, devops, infra, and most of the backend dev.
We had a mobile guy. He was great. I never had to think about it and kept moving quickly on my work. #SpecializationOfLaborFTW
He left. Why? Because they wouldn't give him a small raise despite being one of the best mobile engineers in the firm. WTF.
I made the mistake of picking up just enough slack on this workflow in the interim such that I'm, apparently, the fucking god-damned release manager, fixer of pipelines, fixer of build configs, fixer of anything where someone just needs to RTFM for a half-hour to not fucking break things.
Now, 8 months later...and, apparently, Fortune 500 companies are too fucking god-damned cheap to pay for someone who actually knows WTF they're doing for a very reasonable thing to have at least one dedicated set of eyes for.
I never wanted to be a mobile dev.
I never will want to be a mobile dev.
And I certainly don't want to manage your HALF-FACE-FUCKED detached expo configs.
There's a reason I never intentionally involved myself in mobile. All the way down, it's just shitty cross-compilation, transpilation, dependency-hell, brittle-as-fuck build processes so we can foot-gun and mouth-gun react-native and expo and babel and whatever the fuck else cargo-culted horseshit into the wild.
And why? What's the actual fucking root cause? The biggest white elephant that ever fucking elephant-ed? It's because Apple and Google decided to never collaborate on a truly-native cross-platform SDK--where engineers could write native code that compiles to native binaries that's simply write-once, run-everywhere. They know they could have done that, and they didn't. So what'd they get back? Expo--a too-cleverly-designed backdoor/hack--more-or-less a way to circumvent the sane release process software has usually followed: code -> executable -> deploy. Or code -> deploy (for interpreted langs). Expo's like "keep your same executable, we're just gonna to do updates by injecting new code into it whenever we want". Didn't we learn anything with web? Shit gets messy real quick? Not to mention: HEY EXPO, WE WERE ALREADY BUILDING NATIVE APPS, YOU SHORT-SIGHTED FUCKS. THANKS FOR LURING OUR CTOs INTO FORCING EXPO DOWN OUR THROATS W/ THE IMPLICIT (BUT INCORRECT) TOO-GOOD-TO-BE-TRUE PROMISE THAT WE CAN HAVE WRITE-ONCE, RUN-ANYWHERE WITHOUT ANY BUY-IN OR COOPERATION FROM THE ACTUAL TARGET PLATFORMS.
And, we just, like, accept this? We all know it's garbage engineering. The principles we learned in the classroom aren't just academic abstractions--they actually yield real-world results--and eschewing them yields real-world failures. Expo is tightly-coupled to high-heaven, with leaky abstractions six-ways-to-christmas, chock-full of foot-guns, and fails the most basic test of quality: does it, "just work?"
Expo is fucking shameful and it should fucking die. Its promises are too bold, its land-mines too many, its future-proof-ness is alway, always, always questionable as fuck and a risk to every project that uses it.
You want a rant? This is my fucking venue, 'tis not? Well, then this is a piss and vinegar rant straight from my blood-red, beating fucking heart:
EXPO FUCKING SUCKS. AND IF YOU'RE A FAN, YOU FUCKING SUCK TOO.27 -
A sidebar.
Literally just a sidebar.
And yes, this was in Hell.
Its code was spread across at least 40 files, and it used a bunch of freaking global variables to unfurl accordion sections, hide other sections/items, highlight the active item, etc. These were set (and unset!) in controller actions, so if you didn’t unset one, it remained open and highlighted until another action unset it.
Some of the global variable checks (and permissions checks) were done in the individual views, some outside of the `render` statements that include them. Some of them inherited variables from the parent, some from the controller, some from globals. Getting a view to work was trial and error. Oh, and some had their own inline css, some used css classes.
Subsections were separate views, so were some individual items, both sometimes rendered using shared templates, and all of the views and templates had the exact. same. filename. (They were located in different directories, and thus located automagically via implicit relative paths.) So, it was a virtually endless parade of`render partial => “sidebar”`. Which file does that point to? Good luck figuring it out!
Also, comments in several places said adding a new section required a database migration. I never did figure out why.
Anyway, I discovered this because I had an innocuous-sounding ticket to rearrange the sidebar, group some sections/items under different permissions, move some items to another menu, and nest some others differently.
It took me two bloody weeks, and this was when I was extremely productive every day.
Afterward, I was so disgusted by it that I took a day and removed every trace of the sidebar I could find, and rewrote it. I defined the sidebar in a hash, and wrote a simple recursive builder to generate the markup. It supported optional icons, n-level nesting, automatic highlighting of the current item and all parent nodes, compound and inherited permissions, wrapping of long names, hover and unfurl animations, etc. Took me a couple hundred lines of Ruby at the most, plus about the same of css.
Felt so good to remove that blight.5 -
I wrote a database migration to add a column to a table and populated that column upon record creation.
But the code is so freaking convoluted that it took me four days of clawing my eyes out to manage this.
BUT IT'S FINALLY DONE.
FREAKING YAY.
Why so long, you ask? Just how convoluted could this possibly be? Follow my lead ~
There's an API to create a gift. (Possibly more; I have no bloody clue.)
I needed the mobile dev contractor to tell me which APIs he uses because there are lots of unused ones, and no reasoning to their naming, nor comments telling me what they do.
This API takes the supplied gift params, cherry-picks a few bits of useful data out (by passing both hashes by reference to several methods), replaces a couple of them with lookups / class instances (more pass-by-reference nonsense). After all of this, it logs the resulting (and very different) mess, and happily declares it the original supplied params. Utterly useless for basically everything, and so very wrong.
It then uses this data to call GiftSale#create, which returns an instance of GiftSale (that's actually a Gift; more on that soon).
GiftSale inherits from Gift, and redefines three of its methods.
GiftSale#create performs a lot of validations / data massaging, some by reference, some not. It uses `super` to call Gift#create which actually maps to the constructor Gift#initialize.
Gift#initialize calls Gift#pre_init (passing the data by reference again), which does nothing and returns null. But remember: GiftSale inherits from Gift, meaning GiftSale#pre_init supersedes Gift#pre_init, so that one is called instead. GiftSale#pre_init returns a Stripe charge object upon success, or a Gift (and a log entry containing '500 Internal') upon failure. But this is irrelevant because the return value is never actually used. Pass by reference, remember? I didn't.
We're now back at Gift#initialize, Rails finally creates a Gift object using the args modified [mostly] in-place by all of the above.
Another step back and we're at GiftSale#create again. This method returns either the shiny new Gift object or an error string (???), and the API logic branches on its type. For further confusion: not all of the method's returns are explicit, and those implicit return values are nested three levels deep. (In Ruby, a method will return the last executed line's return value automatically, allowing e.g. `def add(a,b); a+b; end`)
So, to summarize: GiftSale#create jumps back and forth between Gift five times before finally creating a Gift instance, and each jump further modifies the supplied params in-place.
Also. There are no rescue/catch blocks, meaning any issue with any of the above results in a 500. (A real 500, not a fake 500 like last time. A real 500, with tragic consequences.)
If you're having trouble following the above... yep! That's why it took FOUR FREAKING DAYS! I had no tests, no documentation, no already-built way of testing the API, and no idea what data to send it. especially considering it requires data from Stripe. It also requires an active session token + user data, and I likewise had no login API tests, documentation, logging, no idea how to create a user ... fucking hell, it's a mess.)
Also, and quite confusingly:
There's a class for GiftSale, but there's no table for it.
Gift and GiftSale are completely interchangeable except for their #create methods.
So, why does GiftSale exist?
I have no bloody idea.
All it seems to do is make everything far more complicated than it needs to be.
Anyway. My total commit?
Six lines.
IN FOUR FUCKING DAYS!
AHSKJGHALSKHGLKAHDSGJKASGH.7 -
Shit man if I thought that S.O for developers was bad.....Stack Exchange Mathematics is just fucking brutal omg I am loling so bad man these dudes have 0 patience and will legit kill trolls on spot.
Saw a dude not agreeing with implicit meanings behind certain symbolic notations, some other dude disagreed, fight ensured.
This shit is awesome. Ima stick with this shit for a while.
S.O still fucking sucks though. The stack is amazing and the app works fantastic. The people there are shitty beyond belief.
"Well, you probably said that beca...." fuck off3 -
These are the things that finally finally helped me stick to learning programming.
Hello world! This is my first story on devrant and I would like to share how I finally overcame the barriers that had always prevent me from learning programming in a more serious and structured way.
I know my way around linux, had some experience with BASIC many years ago and have more than basic notions of cryptography... however I never got myself to learn programming in such a way that I could write an app or interact with an API. Until now.
I have advanced more than ever before and I believe it might be thanks to these aspects:
1. C#
I have always had struggles with languages that were too compact or used many exotic or cryptic expressions. However I have found C# to be much more readable and easier to understand.
2. Visual Studio
My previous attempts at learning programming were without an IDE. Little did I know what I was missing!
For example when I tried learning python on Debian, I almost went crazy executing programs and trying to find the compile errors in a standard text editor.
Intellisense has been live changing as it allows me to detect errors almost immediately and also to experiment. I'm not afraid to try things out as I know the IDE will point out any errors.
3. .NET library and huge amounts of documentation
It was really really nice to find out how many well documented classes I had available to make my learning process much easier, not having to worry about the little details and instead being able to focus on my program's logic.
4. Strong typing
Call me weird, but I believe that restricting implicit conversions has helped learn more about objects, their types and how they relate to each other.
I guess I should be called a C# fanboy at this point, but I owe it to that language to be where I'm now, writing my first apps.
I also know very very little about other languages and would love to hear if you know about languages that provide a similar experience.
Also, what has helped you when you first started out?
Thanks!!5 -
god i despise these "javascript is bad" articles. everyone seems to be jumping onto that train ever since the WAT talk.
javascript is a *weakly* typed language with implicit type conversions, that's why `{} + []` gives you `0`.
it is not easy to be the most widely used language, and to maintain compatibility across varying platforms.
please think twice before dismissing hard work.
/rant34 -
I don’t know if I would call it a quirk of the language or serious abuse of it :P
But I managed to get a null ref exception when comparing a local int variable to an int parameter to the same function in C#.
Since a local or parameter of type in cannot be null and I compared the variables them self and dud not try to access any property on them (and no extension method or implicit case or similar) my first thought, along with all colleagues that chipped in to help, was that this should not be possible.
Turns out the method was called through reflection and in that part it injected null as the base object to call the method on.
Since local variables actually are referenced through the parent object this was what was causing the null ref.
That took some time to figure out.4 -
I want to explain to people like ostream (aka aviophille) why JS is a crap language. Because they apparently don't know (lol).
First I want to say that JS is fine for small things like gluing some parts togeter. Like, you know, the exact thing it was intended for when it was invented: scripting.
So why is it bad as a programming language for whole apps or projects?
No type checks (dynamic typing). This is typical for scripting languages and not neccesarily bad for such a language but it's certainly bad for a programming language.
"truthy" everything. It's bad for readability and it's dangerous because you can accidentaly make unwanted behavior.
The existence of == and ===. The rule for many real life JS projects is to always use === to be more safe.
In general: The correct thing should be the default thing. JS violates that.
Automatic semicolon insertion can cause funny surprises.
If semicolons aren't truly optional, then they should not be allowed to be omitted.
No enums. Do I need to say more?
No generics (of course, lol).
Fucked up implicit type conversions that violate the principle of least surprise (you know those from all the memes).
No integer data types (only floating point). BigInt obviously doesn't count.
No value types and no real concept for immutability. "Const" doesn't count because it only makes the reference immutale (see lack of value types). "Freeze" doesn't count since it's a runtime enforcement and therefore pretty useless.
No algebraic types. That one can be forgiven though, because it's only common in the most modern languages.
The need for null AND undefined.
No concept of non-nullability (values that can not be null).
JS embraces the "fail silently" approach, which means that many bugs remain unnoticed and will be a PITA to find and debug.
Some of the problems can and have been adressed with TypeScript, but most of them are unfixable because it would break backward compatibility.
So JS is truly rotten at the core and can not be fixed in principle.
That doesn't mean that I also hate JS devs. I pity your poor souls for having to deal with this abomination of a language.
It's likely that I fogot to mention many other problems with JS, so feel free to extend the list in the comments :)
Marry Christmas!34 -
What I'm doing now, writing a JS library for a simple kitchen timer (like, something that can be wound up, is ticking, can be paused, etc). Here's a list of neat stuff I've learned:
Polyfilling as a lib author (I decided against it).
Packaging the lib (using Rollup, ES6 modules are totes cool).
Using flow to add static typing in strategic places (started appreciating types in JS since reading up on functional programming).
Modelling state and transitions using an explicit state machine. (Fucking finally. There's usually an implicit state machine somewhere, only spread out all over the app...)
Using mostly side-effect free methods, being very explicit about when and why things are mutated).
Test-first/TDD (ish) using Jest and the awesome Wallabyjs.
Freeing up mental capacity by letting Prettier format my code for me (it was hard to let go but totally worth it).
Started using git.
Did all work on Ubuntu after pretty much a lifetime of Windows (initially to separate work from gaming) and finally swapped MS Visual Studio for Atom.
When it's finished I'm going to publish it on GitHub, which will also be a first for me. Might try out some CI platform while I'm at it.
tl;dr: wrote some js, felt good2 -
Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!1 -
My Gripe With Implicit Returns
In my experience I've found that wherever possible code should be WYSIWYG in terms of the effects per statement. Intent and the effects thereof should always be explicit per statement, not implicit, otherwise effects not intended will eventually slip in, and be missed.
It's hard to catch, and fix the effects of a statement intent where the statement in question is *implicit* because the effect is a *byproduct* of another statement.
Worse still, this sort of design encourages 'pyramid coding recursion hell', where some users will first decompose their program into respective scopes, and then return and compose them..atomically as possible, meaning execution flow becomes distorted, run time state becomes dependent not on obvious plain-at-sight code, but on the run time state itself. This I've found is a symptom of people who have spent too much time with LISP or other eye-stabbingly fucky abominations. Finally implicit returns encourage a form of thinking where programmers attempt to write code that 'just works' without thinking about how it *looks* or reads. The problem with opaque-programming is that while it may or may not be effortless, much more time is spent in reading, debugging, understanding, and maintaining code than is spent writing it--which is obviously problematic if we have a bunch of invisible returns everywhere, which requires new developers reading it to stop each and every time to decide whether to mentally 'insert' a return statement.
This really isn't a rant, as much as an old bitter gripe from the guy that got stuck with the job of debugging. And admittedly I've admired lisp from afar, but I didn't want to catch the "everything is functional, DOWN WITH THE STATE" fever, I'm no radical.
Just god damn, think of the future programmer who may have to read your code eventually.2 -
So I work for an IT consulting firm (web development) and was hired by a customer 7 months ago for coaching Git, implementation of VueJS on the front-end and fostering teamwork with devs who'd been in their solo comfort zone for the last 15 years.
I asked for confirmation multiple times on whether they were sure they wanted to go through with a bigger investment in front-end. Confirm they did, multiple times.
After half the team's initial enthusiasm faded (after 1 month), the 'senior' of them who's worked there for 18 years on a single -in the end, failed- project got a burn-out after half a week of showing up (without doing actual work) from the stress, and started whining about it with management that has no technical clue whatsoever. This and other petty office politics lead to the dumbest organizational and technical decisions I've seen in my short 5-year career (splitting a Laravel app that uses the same database in two, replacing docker container deployment with manual ssh'ing and symlinking, duplicating all the models, controllers, splitting a team in two, decreasing productivity, replacing project management dashboards with ad-hoc mail instructions and direct requests).
Out of curiosity I did a git log --author --no-merges with the senior's name on the 2 projects he was supposed to help on, and that turned up... ZERO commits. Now the dept. hired 3 new developers with no prior experience, and it's sad to see the seniors teach them "copy paste" as the developer's main reflex.
Through these 7 months I had to endure increasingly vicious sneers from the IT architect -in name only- who gets offended and hysterical at every person who dares offer suggestions. Her not-so-implicit insinuation is that it's all my fault because I implemented Vue front-end (as they requested), she has been doing this for months, every meeting at least once (and she makes sure other attendees notice). Extra background: She's already had 2 official complaints for verbal abuse in the past, and she just stressed another good developer into smoking again.
Now I present her my timesheet for January, she abuses her power by refusing to sign it unless I remove a day of work.
Earlier this week I asked her politely to please stop her unjust guilt-tripping to which she shouted "You'll just have to cope with that!", and I walked out of the room calmly (in order to avoid losing my nerves). She does this purely as a statement, and I know she does it out of bad faith (she doesn't actually care, as she doesn't manage the budgets). She knows she wields more power over me than the internal devs (I am consultant, so negative reviews for me could delay further salary raises).
I just don't know how to handle this person: I can't get a word in with her, or she starts shouting, and it's impossible to change her (completely inaccurate technological) perception.3 -
“The problem with object-oriented languages is they’ve got all this implicit environment that they carry around with them. You wanted a banana but what you got was a gorilla holding the banana and the entire jungle.”
—Chris Scalfani, from https://medium.com/@cscalfani/...4 -
According to people here, ternary operators. I don't care what I'm doing, if I can use a ternary operator instead of an if, get ready for it!
I guess implicit brackets on conditionals and for loops if it's a single line. Anything that saves me typing boilerplate, but it's still readable, I'm gonna do it.1 -
When I was an apprentice in a small company, ...
my boss told me that his company would never ship release builds, because the "evil optimization option" is responsible for breaking his code.
My first thought was that it wouldn't make any sense at all. The default option for code optimization is always set to zero.
After investigating his code, I found out that he didn't care to properly initialize his variables. The default compiler option for debug builds did implicitly initialize all variables to zero. After that I've confronted him with the fact that implicit null initialization does not conform to the standard of C and C++. He didn't believe me what I was saying and he was questioning my knowledge about C and C++. He refused to fix his code to this day, so he keeps building his libraries and applications always in debug mode.
Bonus fact: He would never build 64-bit applications, because his serialization functions do get incompatible with exisiting file formats. -
when i was still studying "web integrator", didnt know shit about programming and just went there to be with a friend.
I quickly got bored, sick and tired of it all being procedural style so i decided there must be something better...
i spend loads of time but eventually developed my own almost fully fledged oop framework, minus polymorphic relationship support, events( i was on the way to that but called it messageBus ),
implicit route bindings
and the routing was based on reflection of controller methods following rest naming.
also i hadnt discovered composer, yet.
by the time i discovered composers, i also discovered laravel, which is my now prefered framework.. :) -
Mah noob wannabe language designer side here again...
...Idea: Automatic/implicit interfaces.
1. do you know a language that has (something like) this?
2. good idea or a bad idea? why?
3. thanks :)
21 -
A quick suggestion, @devRant app should implement an implicit intent so we can share directly to it.5
-
Python ecosystem drives me nuts!
Not the language tho, i kinda like it, and some features are damn straight awesome.
But ecosystem... man!
The way ppl write code in it, the lack of documentation (or in quality of it)...
I recently wanted to check how library does one thing (debug purposes), and not only i had to track some method up 3 classes, the other method i hunted only by signature and still i have no idea how it ends up being accessible where it should...
"Explicit is better than implicit" my ass...
Also dev managed to make the code very unreadable. In Python. Language with such strong opinions about code formatting. HOW ?!!
And the worst part is, it wasn't that big of a library and didn't really need the full freaking Enterprise OOP treatment with layers over layers of generally named classes and fucked up architecture.
FUCK THAT LIB, FUCK THAT DEV, FUCK IT ALL !!!
PS.
Project seems to be abandoned for a year or two, so there is hardly an option to fix things with the author sadly :(3 -
Ok so Swift's module system creates implicit namespace, meaning gone are the days of Objective-c frameworks / classes having prefixes.
I get that, and its a great advancement. But when I'm using 3 different social media SDK's, a networking library and some persistence cocoapods and I have to use classes called "AccessToken" and "Manager" ... come on guys, name your shit better.
I'm looking at you Facebook and AlamoFire!!! -
I'm still not over how LINQ is defined as a thin wrapper over both IQueryable (which can be efficiently queried) and IEnumerable (which can only be iterated), but IQueryable extends IEnumerable, so if you execute one unserializable operation anywhere in a query issued to your database it'll merrily pump whatever temporary collection happens to reside on the boundary through the C# program to execute that call on each row and process the rest as an IEnumerable.5
-
Doesn't Python kind of contradict its own mantra. When they write explicit is better than implicit but at the same time they provide collection literals?5
-
HDL choices:
Verilog: Spend hours finding bugs in implicit type casts.
VHDL: Spend hours writing type casts.1 -
!rant
So I started learning Golang.
I have to say, I heard the language was good but holy shit!
I got my eye on you implicit interface implementation👀👀
I can't wait to start my first project with a clusterfuck of compositions 🤤
P.s: syntax is kinda weird ¯\_(ツ)_/¯6 -
Started out on some Go code today. It's looking really promising so far - the lack of implicit stuff is really refreshing. Less is more.1
-
Not loving the implicit return statement within Scala. I like to avoid else statements to keep the level of nesting low and do early return yet Scala doesn't allow that.
(I am aware that I should flatMap that shit though in some cases I just want a simple if not foo then throw exception line. And continue with the next block until I return something.)
So you either have to create if-else-nesting beats or use pattern matching. The latter seems overly complicated for this use case (though it has its moments).
I know that I can make the return explicit yet the linter warns against that. It feels so verbose and I currently do not see any benefits and would argue that the code becomes both harder to read and maintain.3 -
Learning Philosophy.
It is the most important thing for anyone to do to.
Everyone has one either implicit or explicit.
Learning metaphysics, and then more specifically epistemology has greatly increased my ability to process new information and build better models of the world around me. -
Oh china, you always know how to snap me out of long stints of mundane and/or annoying, chore-esq work.
//...and letting me excuse a 10min, otherwise purely wrong procrastination down a current political rabbit hole
I gotta say, at least in china they are bold enough to put their image and identity on whatever they make... but in that 'im selling pseudo-sex, not because im sexy--just the opposite, so you know I relate' way.
Side note: i got an automated spam call survey yesterday*... it ot got to the 1st (of claimed 3) question.. which had a surprising amount of actual reiterations before looping... it was determined to get opinions(and totally incept the lemmings, soccer moms and politically ignorant into their stance, plus intense rage/disgust/dreams of standing on a soap box and fighting about this new issue they were totally unaware of.)... about this actively serving, politician's demand that china sell tiktok or totally stop allowing any operations/use on american soil... because of the heavily implied heinous nature of controlling and twisting society via media to it's explicitly declared communism... even directly called china, as a whole, communists, with impressive dramatics (and i coached public speaking hs and college kids then over a decade of business consulting, typically involving coaching vocals and implicit vocab)
I actually listened to it because it's what a typical subject, brought out of the koolaid fog, would view as ridiculously ironic(assuming they knew the actual, and therefore inherently ironic, def if irony... most dont. It's disturbing)... but it you have decent common sense, and dont emotionally view your entirety as wrong/broken/needing to be fixed in a cult-like manner, it's the oposite of irony. History of/and politics pull this crap all the time. It still works.
It reminds me of how my moniker, awesomeest, came about. In 3rd grade i realised that even adults, knowing they were chatting with an 8yr old, even if they knew/used the correct spelling of a, less common, term... if i misspelled it as if i thought it was right, theyd actually change their spelling to match (in perpetuity) albeit my vocab was easily high school level by then...likely at least in part to my flawless(aka blind/ignorant) demeanor of confidence that whatever i said/thought was totally correct, as a matter of fact. Not like the insecure ppl trying to prove something
I used to find it so comical... now it's just sad.
This bs automated political spam/manipulation is the modern version of i remember of kids farting in the late 90s... the culprit quickly accusing someone else of their offense, but even extra immature kids 25+ yrs ago figured that out... and even made the retort a catchy rhyme..."the one who smelt it, dealt it"
*i basically programmed in a counter attack/something akin to immature passive aggressive ' who"s really the one wasting the other's time and resources now?!? Ha!' ...odd numbers automatically go into a sort of echo chamber instead of ringing, with a manual escape to actually ringing/calling prompt built in.
I can listen in at any time without it having any effecf/sound too.
I'm curious if anyone participates in these minor acts of terrorism to complete an unrequested, intrusive, and human-less format of a proclaimed opinion poll? And if you do, are you honest? Why do you do it?
Annoyance at spam aside... the real victim I mentally mourn, and view it's method of demise akin to a cardinal sin (assuming religion...blah blah)... is the data! I <3 data... good, unobscured, not contrived, simple, pure, raw data... killed before its birth :'(
5 -
I need some advice to avoid stressing myself out. I'm in a situation where I feel stuck between a rock and a hard place at work, and it feels like there's no one to turn to. This is a long one, because context is needed.
I've been working on a fairly big CMS based website for a few years that's turned into multiple solutions that I'm more or less responsible for. During that time I've been optimizing the code base with proper design patterns, setting up continuous delivery, updating packaging etc. because I care that the next developer can quickly grasp what's going on, should they take over the project in the future. During that time I've been accused of over-engineering, which to an extent is true. It's something I've gotten a lot better at over the years, but I'm only human and error prone, so sometimes that's just how it is.
Anyways, after a few years of working on the project I get a new colleague that's going to help me on my CMS projects. It doesn't take long for me to realize that their code style is a mess. Inconsistent line breaks and naming conventions, really god awful anti-pattern code. There's no attempt to mimic the code style I've been using throughout the project, it's just complete chaos. The code "works", although it's not something I'd call production code. But they're new and learning, so I just sort of deal with it and remain patient, pointing out where they could optimize their code, teaching them basic object oriented design patterns like... just using freaking objects once in a while.
Fast forward a few years until now. They've learned nothing. Every time I read their code it's the same mess it's always been.
Concrete example: a part of the project uses Vue to render some common components in the frontend. Looking through the code, there is currently *no* attempt to include any air between functions, or any part of the code for that matter. Everything gets transpiled and minified so there's absolutely NO REASON to "compress" the code like this. Furthermore, they have often directly manipulated the DOM from the JavaScript code rather than rendering the component based on the model state. Completely rendering the use of Vue pointless.
And this is just the frontend part of the code. The backend is often orders of magnitude worse. They will - COMPLETELY RANDOMLY - sometimes leave in 5-10 lines of whitespace for no discernable reason. It frustrates me to no end. I keep asking them to verify their staged changes before every commit, but nothing changes. They also blatantly copy/paste bits of my code to other components without thinking about what they do. So I'll have this random bit of backend code that injects 3-5 dependencies there's simply no reason for and aren't being used. When I ask why they put them there I simply get a “I don't know, I just did it like you did it”.
I simply cannot trust this person to write production code, and the more I let them take over things, the more the technical debt we accumulate. I have talked to my boss about this, and things have improved, but nowhere near where I need it to be.
On the other side of this are my project manager and my boss. They, of course, both want me to implement solutions with low estimates, and as fast and simply as possible. Which would be fine if I wasn't the only person fighting against this technical debt on my team. Add in the fact that specs are oftentimes VERY implicit, so I'm stuck guessing what we actually need and having to constantly ask if this or that feature should exist.
And then, out of nowhere, I get assigned a another project after some colleague quits, during a time I’m already overbooked. The project is very complex and I'm expected to give estimates on tasks that would take me several hours just to research.
I'm super stressed and have no one I can turn to for help, hence this post. I haven't put the people in this post in the best light, but they're honestly good people that I genuinely like. I just want to write good code, but it's like I have to fight for my right to do it.1 -
"You don't need to put a type annotation here, the type will be inferred by the compiler"
"We don't need to mark this function as async, since we are already returning a promise but not awaiting it yet within this method"
TypeScript codebase. Am I wrong to prefer that things be explicit rather than implicit? Sounds a bit tryhard to try and make things implicit, but maybe the async really changes behavior in the second case? I don't think so, and I prefer to mark an asynchronous operation as such, but I'm still doubtful; that's why I humbly ask you all what makes more sense here.7 -
Does anyone know of a tool that will statically analize a C program and check if it's behaviour would be the same as a C++ program? Flagging things like implicit void* coercions, for example.
The use case would be if you find a C library and want to use it with C++, for example. Or are writing a library and want it to be usable in both C and C++.
If this doesn't exist,
does anyone want to help me make it? I was thinking we could modify an existing C linter to do this.26 -
Microsoft Web Api:
"you can pick up on some of these implicit behaviours by reading the unit tests for the default model binder."
I don't know what I expected.1 -
package main
// go is very frustrating. in their efforts to keep the language simple, they've broken its consistency :(
// A A is just some arbitrary interface
type A interface {
Foo()
}
// B is an interface requiring a function that returns an A
type B interface {
Bar() A
}
// Aimpl implements A
type Aimpl struct{}
// Foo is Aimpl's implementation of A
func (a Aimpl) Foo() {}
// Bimpl attempts to implement B
type Bimpl struct{}
// Bar is Bimpl's attempt at implementing B.
// problem is, if Bar returns an Aimpl instead of A, the interface is not satisfied
// this is because Go doesn't support implicit upcasting on returns from interfaced objects.
// if we were to simply change the declared return type of Bar() to 'A', without changing
// the returned value, Bimpl will satisfy B.
func (b Bimpl) Bar() Aimpl {
return Aimpl{}
}
var _ B = Bimpl{}
func main() {
}2 -
I pride myself on not being a nerd. I can communicate with customers and I don't dismiss aesthetics, marketing, delivery dates, and legal considerations as completely inconsistent and arbitrary.
But still, when clients complain about my predecessors, I start to feel for them and imagine when past developers
- preferred to rewrite the legacy system
- were reluctant to use Microsoft software
- needed much more time than estimated
- and failed to understand implicit requirements.
I know that there are a lot of developers in the world, but you need a decent or good one who is available and willing to work on your project.
As (web) developers, we should behave more like craftspeople, stay calm, and ignore entitled clients' and managers' moods and micro-management attempts unless there's really a critical issue.13 -
So, the PowerQuery type system appears to be a Joke.
For those you that aren't familiar with PowerQuery, it's the ETL language that is used in PowerBI, and some other parts of the MS PowerPlatform. It was formerly known as the M Language.
The language has a type system, that includes records (think hashes) and tables, which are, for practical purposes, a list of records.
The wonderful M language specification document states that:
"Any value that is a record conforms to the intrinsic type record, which does not place any restrictions on the field names or values within a record value. A record-type value is used to restrict the set of valid names as well as the types of values that are permitted to be associated with those names."
Except that the restriction is only to the set of valid names, and the language interpreter doesn't throw an error when I place a number into a text field, but also doesn't do any sort of implicit conversion. This is all hunky-dory, until you then try to load the data into the Tabular Model that underlies the query engine, which does expect the values to be of the type that is specified, and it throws an error.
But PowerBI, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't actually *record* the error, it merely tells you the error exists, and tells you to go back to the query editor to list the errors thrown up by the powerquery engine. Which, as previously stated, doesn't throw up an error for this instance.
So I've spent all afternoon trying to work out why my queries aren't loading, because I have an error that doesn't exist. fml.
[You can follow this issue on the communtiy feedback site here: https://community.powerbi.com/t5/... ] -
Almost every I code with close friends (all seniors) or my brother (also senior).
It's crazy what we can accomplish when there is no implicit and no one want to take shortcuts.
And mostly on personal projects, no client to shit all over the place.
With m'y brother we also often code at 4 hands in repl.it -
I'm in a big fat fucking stinking rut, as in progress on this project has absolutely stagnanted.
Gonna rubber face your duck now **UNZIPS** excepts I don't have zippers, as joggers are the one true way; fake Adidas til I fucking drop.
Brain damage aside, I understand both how I've layed out the data and what I'm supposed to do with it. We have a virtual machine, an array of instructions and arguments for a given process within it, and we need to walk this array and map values to registers.
We also need to spill values inside registers to stack, IF they are required at a further point within that block. This also isn't terribly complex. We simply look forward in the array and see if the value is an argument to any instruction that *needs* this value to be loaded (ie, within a register).
So this implies multiple iterations; we need to better understand how one particular value is used throughout an F before we can make a final decision on how many registers and stack space are actually needed for the whole block.
Here's where it gets tricky. If there's a call, we need to be certain that the symbol being invoked has already been fully processed. Besides the obvious fact that recursion fucks me up, there's another matter: say a private method gets invoked by another private method. We can take advantage of this, by which I mean, sacrilege incoming so put on this toga.
Looking at the output for C compilers, it would seem this is not done in practice, I would assume because it's a pain in the ass. But when you have the guarantee that F will only be called internally, as that's what "private" means, there's two ways it can go:
0. It's well below the 13-20 cycle threshold, so you inline the fucker. No suprises there.
1. It's a more involved affaire, and invoked in more than one place, so you don't inline it. Codesize matters.
Recursion and [1] are the big deal things holding me back. Not because it's too hard, like I said this is kindergarten level abstraction. I'm just slow and fanatical, which is how I prefer to spell "constant obsessive paranoid delusions". I can see the potential optimization I can pull here, so I'm stuck trying to figure it out.
Idea would be, handling the register allocation and stack spill for an internal-internal (or deep internal; what we like to call a "guts" method) in synchronization with the *calling* processes. This is, fundamentally, violating all conventions -- but so under the hood no one will notice.
Let me give you an example. If we were to pass some value to a function, expecting to mutate it and get a different value back, in a lot of cases it'd be stupid to make an implicit copy by using two registers, one for input and another for the output. Dude, it's one cycle. Multiply it by a million, say sixty times per second, for every time you __needlessly__ make a copy of a value that we've already stated is mutable.
Clearly unacceptable. This is, in the strictest sense, everywhere in every single codebase. Premature micro optimization is the root of all goodness, God is great and praiseworthy. So how do we go about it?
Answer is I know and I don't know. By which I mean to say, this very thing I've done by hand. Assembly is fun. Now the issue is teaching a calculator how to do it. Not so fun.
There is a dependency chain between processes, as I believe I've kind of alluded to. I'm trying to make decisions on the side of the caller depending on the details of the callee, which is why recursion is rawdogging my soul. This is the same situation, it's inverting the direction of one or more links in the dependency chain, which makes no fucking sense.
And yet it does.
Brain, explain yourself.
How do *you* handle this without crashing?
Brain?
<<ME STEWPED; BEEP-BOOP>>
Alright then, that was a useless attempt at fuckery. Let's have a nap then, maybe it'll come to me in the morning. That's what I've been saying to myself for almost a month now.
Perhaps it is a hardcoded fuk.1 -
Who on earth decided, that float64 is a suitable default datatype for one-hot vectors in numpy?
That's what I deserve for relying on reasonable implicit behaviour1 -
Rust really needs an implicit Clone for lightweight operations like cloning an Rc, or a big fat warning sign at Copy telling programmers never to derive it for any custom type because if you ever have to remove it you will have to update every single occurrence of any value of your type.7
-
Grammatical question (loosely programming related) :
I've always thought of the terms implicit and explicit, as words belonging to the same family if not quite exact opposites.
Anyway it seems sensible to me that if you turn implicit into a verb it becomes imply then to be explicit one would exply (as in be explicitly clear).
Does anyone else think there is a language gap here? -
To all the docker users in this platform, have you ever dockerized a spa with OAuth 2.0 Implicit grant?
I am getting this weird 404 error after I get the AT and redirection happens. This is so frustrating!!!!
Top Tags
Weekly Rant
View