9rx

37 ms·

721.
by 9rx 10mo ago
In the olden days alcohol was a prerequisite to get (most) people dancing. Nowadays drinking has declined substantially, especially amongst the younger crowd who are most likely to frequent concerts and clubs. Does the article factor that i
722.
by 9rx 10mo ago
It is quite possible the tools will never improve beyond where they sit today, sure, but then usage will naturally drift away from that fatiguing use (not all use, obviously). The constant compile/wait cycle is exhausting exactly becau
723.
by 9rx 10mo ago
Well designed ones do, at least. LLMs, in their infancy, still bring a lot of undefined behaviour, which is you end up stuck in the code for a few minutes -> compile -> wait -> repeat cycle. But that is not a desirable property and
724.
by 9rx 10mo ago
LLMs are just a programming language/compiler/REPL, though, so there is nothing out of the ordinary for developers. Except what is different is the painfully slow compile time to code ratio. You write code for a few minutes... and
725.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> Many of these people are well-educated and affluent. That does not preclude them from being uneducated and gullible to brainwashing. In fact, there is a strong case to be made that being well-educated and affluent primes one to becom
726.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> Mocks are usually all about reaching inside the implementation and checking things. Unfortunately there is no consistency in the nomenclature used around testing. Testing is, after all, the least understood aspect of computer science
727.
by 9rx 10mo ago
Tests are only concerned with the user interface, not the implementation. If System B changes, that means that you only have to change your implementation around using System B to reflect it. The user interface remains the same, and thus th
728.
by 9rx 10mo ago
If your SQL is isolated to one place then you only need to test that single package with a real DB and can use mocks everywhere else. Your mocks can be tested with the exact same test suite as the SQL package, so you know it conforms to the
729.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> Balanced books =/= accurate books Naturally. Hence "high confidence" and not "full confidence". But let's not travel too far into the weeds here. Getting us back on track, what about the concept of &quot
730.
by 9rx 10mo ago
What about the concept of "high confidence" is not understandable?
731.
by 9rx 10mo ago
Trouble is that TDD, and formal proofs to much the same extent, assume a model of "double entry accounting". Meaning that you write both the test/proof and the implementation, and then make sure they agree. Like in accounting
732.
by 9rx 10mo ago
I don't become enamoured by language. I really don't care if I have to zig or zag. I'll happily work in every language under the sun. It is no more interesting than trying to determine if Milwaukee or Mikita make a better dri
733.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> As I said, I ended up needing about 50% more lines to accomplish the same thing in Go I'd be using Perl if that bothered me. But there is folly in trying to model from a solution instead of the problem. For example, maybe all
734.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> C has numeric enums and tagged unions C has unions, but they're not tagged. You can roll your own tagged unions, of course, but that's moving beyond it being a feature of the language. > How would you model this in Go?
735.
by 9rx 10mo ago
They're nothing special, but were designed for a particular CPU and expose the details of that CPU. And since we were talking about C specifically, not a bunch of other random languages that may have did similar things... While most mo
736.
by 9rx 10mo ago
C pointers expose CPU capabilities. You can always emulate functionality on different architectures, though, so where is the practical line even drawn?
737.
by 9rx 10mo ago
That wouldn't explain C, then, which does not have sum types either. All three languages do have enums (as it is normally defined), though. Go is only the odd one out by using a different keyword. As these programs were told to be writ
738.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> and this year has had a tremendous amount of progress in collectively figuring out how to use this new programming language effectively. Hence the lost year. Instead of productively building things, we spent a lot of resources on t
739.
by 9rx 10mo ago
When Go was launched, it was said it was built specifically for building network services. More often than not that means using protobuf, and as such protobuf generated code ends up being a significant part of your application. You'd h
740.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> it was annoying to program (due to a lack of enums) Typescript also lacks enums. Why wasn't it considered annoying? I mean, technically it does have an enum keyword that offers what most would consider to be enums, but that keyw
741.
by 9rx 10mo ago
The best code is the code not written, so perhaps it is the best name for a programming language?
742.
by 9rx 10mo ago
AI has become very good at writing pointless and bad tests, at least. It remains difficult to compel it to write good tests consistently. But even if it wrote great tests every time, the trouble is that testing was designed around the idea
743.
by 9rx 10mo ago
It's called marketing. If Go quietly made something perfect, nobody would know of its existence. Do stupid things that gets people talking and everyone soon learns about you.
744.
by 9rx 10mo ago
That is, strangely, until those humans turn to a topic I know something about. Then their reliability drops like a hot potato. At least they get everything else right!
745.
by 9rx 10mo ago
Each of the last productivity multipliers coincided with greatly expanded markets (e.g. PC revolution, internet, mobile). Those are at the saturation point. And we've effectively built all the software those things need now. Of course
746.
by 9rx 10mo ago
If it weren't already in the same domain you wouldn't be able to read a non-HttpOnly cookie anyway, so that's moot.
747.
by 9rx 10mo ago
I tried it once. It uncannily picked up on what I was interested that day. However, by the second day I had moved on to new interests, but it didn't. It keep trying to push the same thing as the day before that I was no longer interest
748.
by 9rx 10mo ago
There is no difference. It is all testing. Testing captures the full gamut, from simply manually using the software all the way up to formal proofs. Although the advantages of formal proofs over other modes of testing was already written ab
749.
by 9rx 10mo ago
BDD was trying to recapture what TDD was originally, renamed from TDD in an effort to shed all the confusion that surrounded TDD. Of course, BDD picked up all of its own confusion (e.g. Gherkin/Cucumber and all that ridiculousness). So
750.
by 9rx 10mo ago
> You need a very different mindset to write in JS (or TS), in Rust, in Rocq, in Esterel or on a Quantum Computer. "Senior", "principle", etc. are not about your ability to write. They speak to one's capacity t

More ›