2 ms·
> It’s not my job to provide you with alternative code. That’s your job. It is not your job to tell me "that is wrong", yet you do it because it's easy. Sugges
by bheadmaster 2y ago
> It’s not my job to provide you with alternative code. That’s your job.
It is not your job to tell me "that is wrong", yet you do it because it's easy. Suggesting an alternative (not necessarily providing the code) is less easy, so you don't wanna do it. That's fine. I just want you to be aware that the former without the latter is pretty much useless.
- orf 2y agoIt is also easy to tell you that you’re wrong if you were to post that you use your forehead to hammer nails into a post. Posting detailed instructions on how to identify, purchase and utilise a hammer isn’t something I need to do, and doesn’t negate the correctness of the initial “don’t do that”.
- foldr 2y agoYou've been missing the point of bheadmaster's posts, which (as it seems to me) was to show that "you can compose context-aware code with context-oblivious code (by passing context.Background()), and vice versa with no problems". Bheadmaster gave some proof of concept code showing how to do that. The code might be somewhat inefficient, but that doesn't invalidate the point. If you think there's a more efficient way to compose context-aware code with context-oblivious code, then the best way to make that case would be to explain how to do so.