!rant

The Sound of Typing (an original dev parody of "The Sound of Silence")

Hello caffeine, my old friend
I've come to sip on you again
Because my mind continues sleeping
While overpiled work is creeping
And the deadline that is flashing upon my screen
Can't be unseen
Within the sound of typing

Down the lines of buggy code
I quickly switch to debug mode
What kind of moron wrote this function?
For this unnecessary junction?
Wrapped in a condition that will always return true
I need a brew
To forget the sound of typing

Boss said I you do not know
WordPress like a cancer grows
A one page website doesn't need that
Still I wear my debug hard hat
And when I sleep I still see the same terror
Fatal error
Echoed in the sounds of typing

And every time I leave my home
I must launch chrome on my phone
The constant messages and phone calls
The chiming echoes through the halls
While I frantically fix some FooBar'd CSS
BUT I don't have LESS
Deep in the sounds of typing

And when I think I have it done
Some scope creep ruins all my fun
So now I force through an all-nighter
While I forge on like a fighter
But the project I thought was due on next Friday
Changed to Monday
Within the sound of typing

Want to make someone's life a misery? Here's how.

Don't base your tech stack on any prior knowledge or what's relevant to the problem.

Instead design it around all the latest trends and badges you want to put on your resume because they're frequent key words on job postings.

Once your data goes in, you'll never get it out again. At best you'll be teased with little crumbs of data but never the whole.

I know, here's a genius idea, instead of putting data into a normal data base then using a cache, lets put it all into the cache and by the way it's a volatile cache.

Here's an idea. For something as simple as a single log lets make it use a queue that goes into a queue that goes into another queue that goes into another queue all of which are black boxes. No rhyme of reason, queues are all the rage.

Have you tried: Lets use a new fangled tangle, trust me it's safe, INSERT BIG NAME HERE uses it.

Finally it all gets flushed down into this subterranean cunt of a sewerage system and good luck getting it all out again. It's like hell except it's all shitty instead of all fiery.

All I want is to export one table, a simple log table with a few GB to CSV or heck whatever generic format it supports, that's it.

So I run the export table to file command and off it goes only less than a minute later for timeout commands to start piling up until it aborts. WTF. So then I set the most obvious timeout setting in the client, no change, then another timeout setting on the client, no change, then i try to put it in the client configuration file, no change, then I set the timeout on the export query, no change, then finally I bump the timeouts in the server config, no change, then I find someone has downloaded it from both tucows and apt, but they're using the tucows version so its real config is in /dev/database.xml (don't even ask). I increase that from seconds to a minute, it's still timing out after a minute.

In the end I have to make my own and this involves working out how to parse non-standard binary formatted data structures. It's the umpteenth time I have had to do this.

These aren't some no name solutions and it really terrifies me. All this is doing is taking some access logs, store them in one place then index by timestamp. These things are all meant to be blazing fast but grep is often faster. How the hell is such a trivial thing turned into a series of one nightmare after another? Things that should take a few minutes take days of screwing around. I don't have access logs any more because I can't access them anymore.

The terror of this isn't that it's so awful, it's that all the little kiddies doing all this jazz for the first time and using all these shit wipe buzzword driven approaches have no fucking clue it's not meant to be this difficult. I'm replacing entire tens of thousands to million line enterprise systems with a few hundred lines of code that's faster, more reliable and better in virtually every measurable way time and time again.

This is constant. It's not one offender, it's not one project, it's not one company, it's not one developer, it's the industry standard. It's all over open source software and all over dev shops. Everything is exponentially becoming more bloated and difficult than it needs to be. I'm seeing people pull up a hundred cloud instances for things that'll be happy at home with a few minutes to a week's optimisation efforts. Queries that are N*N and only take a few minutes to turn to LOG(N) but instead people renting out a fucking off huge ass SQL cluster instead that not only costs gobs of money but takes a ton of time maintaining and configuring which isn't going to be done right either.

I think most people are bullshitting when they say they have impostor syndrome but when the trend in technology is to make every fucking little trivial thing a thousand times more complex than it has to be I can see how they'd feel that way. There's so bloody much you need to do that you don't need to do these days that you either can't get anything done right or the smallest thing takes an age.

I have no idea why some people put up with some of these appliances. If you bought a dish washer that made washing dishes even harder than it was before you'd return it to the store.

Every time I see the terms enterprise, fast, big data, scalable, cloud or anything of the like I bang my head on the table. One of these days I'm going to lose my fucking tits.

A new mathematical constant was discovered recently: Bruce's constant

I took some code from the paper and adapted it in python.

def bruce(n):
J = log(n, 1.333333333333333) / log(n, 2)
K = log(n, 1.333333333333333) / log(n, 3)
return ((J+K)-e)+1

gives e everytime for ((J+K)-bruce)+1, regardless of the value of n.

bruce can always be aproximated with the decimal 4.5, telling you how close n can be used to aproximate e (usually to two digits).

Bruce's constant is equal to 4.5099806905005

It is named after that famous mathematician, bruce lee.

You'll start with four limbs and end up with two in a wheelchair!

So the incompetence of this knob-head are unbelievable, so in our company there's a particular method that required to return object specific way like
{
'a' : 'b',
{
'c' : 'd',
'e' : 0,
}
};
}

which somehow will be use everywhere in the project, I decided to create a constant class therefore anyone can use it and prevent redundant code. (re write the same thing over and over again). He decided to tell me to rewrite the same method for every-time I needed to return data.

My method is to avoid writing the same thing in repetition , that is why I place a method in a constant class where I call every-time I need to return those data in the specific way.

But he prefer writing it in repetition. OMG

I'm testing that functions in a service I made are accessible to activities that bind to it and this is what I call to ensure that

I'm a C++/Obj-C programmer finding it ludicrously hard to switch to Swift.

I find that the constant ability (leading to very poor programmer code) to reduce syntax and add tokens reduces readability and nowhere is this more apparent that with closures.

I'm working through (to my shame) Ray Wenderlich's Swift course and the closure chapter has this:

PS I loathe K&R as much as I do Swift so it's all in Allman formatting for clarity.

let multiply: (Int, Int) -> Int =
{
(a: Int, b: Int) -> Int in

// do Something else

return a * b
}
Why oh why isn't this more simply and elegantly written as:

let multiply = (a: Int, b: Int) -> Int
{
// do Something else

return a * b
}
The equals sign shows clearly that it's a closure definition assignment, as does the starting 'let'. But this way all of the stupid excesses, like the 'in' keyword, the repetition of the params / return type only this time with useful labels and additional tokens are removed and it looks and reads much more like a regular function and certainly a lot more clearly.

Now I know that with the stupid ability of Swift you can reduce all this down to return $0 * $1, but the point I'm making is that a) that's not as clear and more importantly b) if this closure does something more than just one line of code, then all that complicated stuff - hinted to by the comment '// do Something else' means you can't reduce it to stupid tokens.

So, when you have a clousure that has a lot of stuff going on and you can't reduce it to stupid minimalism, then why isn't is formatted and syntactically better like the suggestion above?

I've mentioned this on the Swift.org (and got banned for criticising Swift) but the suggestions they came up with were 'use type inference' to remove the first set of params / return type and token.

But that still means the param list and return type are NOT on the same line as the declaration and you still need the stupid 'in' keyword!