4 ms·

What an odd response. I haven't done any OO programming in nearly a decade, and I would not consider doing it ever again. I don't know where you got the idea

by asdasf 13y ago

What an odd response. I haven't done any OO programming in nearly a decade, and I would not consider doing it ever again. I don't know where you got the idea that OO has anything to do with this. I do catch these sorts of errors early on, because they are type errors, and thus the compiler catches them. That is very much the point. The fact that you think you are infallible and can write 100% perfect test coverage, while thinking I am being condescending is pretty hilarious.

EpicEng 13y ago
Not odd at all; you were being condescending, trying to paint me as someone who isn't as good a programmer as you are. Maybe I'm not, but I've written some very robust systems code in my career, so don't be so quick to write people off. I don't think I'm infallible (straw man much?), but I do think that dead simple errors such as this would be caught by any amount of actual testing. That said, I wouldn't be against a better design. Why doesn't this library provide a way to add arbitrary headers? Oh, right, that would still involve using a string. Gasp, no, that shouldn't be allowed. We have to protect the poor users of our library. Yeesh. You can't always protect a programmer from themselves while still allowing the flexibility/power needed to get shit done. I'd rather use the map than some overly architected and frustrating library. I have a problem with abstractions that get in my way.
- asdasf 13y ago
  No, you interpreted it as condescending. Just because I enjoy unbridled optimism does not mean I am condescending. You are suggesting that you are infallible, as the "dead simple errors" you refer to get out into production systems every single day. More than one serious security hole in rails has been due to very similar problems. You are very much implying that you are a better programmer than the entire rails team. And virtually everyone else, as examples of these kinds of bugs are everywhere. And finally, crying straw man while presenting a straw man is poor form. If a particular library has a deficiency, that's unfortunate. But it has absolutely nothing to do with type safety. Haskell for example is more type safe, and it has two http client libraries, both of which provide safety while also allowing arbitrary headers (and methods, etc).
  - Myrmornis 13y ago
    I love that there are people who say things like this totally seriously. No, it was condescending.
  - EpicEng 13y ago
    Who cares about your super awesome Haskell library? You have meandered our of context. My response was in response to a defense of this particular implementation. If your abstraction sucks then I don't want it as it will cause me more headache than it is worth. That's the point. EDIT: Eh... looking back at my original comment I don't think I got that across at all. It reads as more of a rant against a typed system in general, which is not what I intended.

by asdasf 13y ago

EpicEng 13y ago

Not odd at all; you were being condescending, trying to paint me as someone who isn't as good a programmer as you are. Maybe I'm not, but I've written some very robust systems code in my career, so don't be so quick to write people off. I don't think I'm infallible (straw man much?), but I do think that dead simple errors such as this would be caught by any amount of actual testing. That said, I wouldn't be against a better design. Why doesn't this library provide a way to add arbitrary headers? Oh, right, that would still involve using a string. Gasp, no, that shouldn't be allowed. We have to protect the poor users of our library. Yeesh. You can't always protect a programmer from themselves while still allowing the flexibility/power needed to get shit done. I'd rather use the map than some overly architected and frustrating library. I have a problem with abstractions that get in my way.

asdasf 13y ago
No, you interpreted it as condescending. Just because I enjoy unbridled optimism does not mean I am condescending. You are suggesting that you are infallible, as the "dead simple errors" you refer to get out into production systems every single day. More than one serious security hole in rails has been due to very similar problems. You are very much implying that you are a better programmer than the entire rails team. And virtually everyone else, as examples of these kinds of bugs are everywhere. And finally, crying straw man while presenting a straw man is poor form. If a particular library has a deficiency, that's unfortunate. But it has absolutely nothing to do with type safety. Haskell for example is more type safe, and it has two http client libraries, both of which provide safety while also allowing arbitrary headers (and methods, etc).
- Myrmornis 13y ago
  I love that there are people who say things like this totally seriously. No, it was condescending.
- EpicEng 13y ago
  Who cares about your super awesome Haskell library? You have meandered our of context. My response was in response to a defense of this particular implementation. If your abstraction sucks then I don't want it as it will cause me more headache than it is worth. That's the point. EDIT: Eh... looking back at my original comment I don't think I got that across at all. It reads as more of a rant against a typed system in general, which is not what I intended.