LinXitoW

13 ms·

181.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
My cynical take is that a lot of the people for whom the tiktok algorithm "didn't work" simply weren't pleased by what the algorithm (correctly) thought of them. It's like the 40 year old truck driver that complains
182.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
The difference is, of course, that only one of those countries CONSTANTLY bangs on about being the "free" world, about "free" markets, about how not saying the n-word is censorship etc. In short, it's only hypocriti
183.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
My biggest pet peeve with Kotlin is that they got rid of checked exceptions and replaced them with nothing at all. All error code flow is now just invisible unchecked exceptions, the single worst kind of error handling imaginable. I know th
184.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Checked Exceptions are nothing but errors as values with some syntactic sugar for the most common use case (bubbling up the error). Gos version of value errors is just micrometers ahead of C style error codes. In both cases you get told &qu
185.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Go has insanely good tooling and very fast single binary compiling. While all these languages (afaik) can reach similar levels of functionality (GraalVM e.g.), it's more work. As much as I hate the language Go, I can't deny how br
186.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
My slightly snarky take is that liking Go is simply a defensive reaction to one too many AbstractFactoryBeanFactory. Too many abstractions overloaded their "abstraction-insulin", so now they can only handle minute amounts of abstr
187.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but Rust style error handling feels like the global optimum under the constraint that the average developer understand it. Go is a language that exists purely because people saw Monads in the horizon and, in
188.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
But so would every single other method to react to different types of errors, no? In something like go, you're even required to create the separate code path for EVERY SINGLE erroring line, even if your intention is simply to bubble it
189.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
The biggest issue with checked exceptions in modern Java is that even the Java makers themselves have abandoned them. They don't work well with any of the fancy features, like Streams. Checked Exceptions are nothing but errors as retur
190.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Which Go doesn't fix either, because their errors are all just "error", aka you can also forget to catch the right type of error. If only there was a way to combine optimizing the default path (bubbling), and still provide in
191.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I mean, I agree that Khan is the best possible option, but I disagree that pro-market isn't ideological. Where the free market fans see child slavery and sexual slavery and rejoice (free to make any contract you want to after all), the
192.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I unironically like the YAML format. It's very readable, imho, and most people (at least in the web space) already know it. It's better than the way just does attributes and descriptions. On the other hand, what irks me is how par
193.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
It's a fully fledged, horrible language. Anything beyond basic queries is unreadable, ESPECIALLY when it's done in plain strings in another language. There's not even a way to not have to repeat values EVERY SINGLE TIME (thin
194.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
It literally had generics from the very first day. They were just gate kept from the "smelly, lowest common denominator code monkey morons", because noone could match the genius of their creators, or ever have the same issues to s
195.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I guess this is a semantics argument, but I assume they mean to express the same thing with same (or reasonably same) security guarantees. After all, the security and "bug freeness" is part of what they are expressing. If you atte
196.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I think the sticking point is what people mean when they say simple. To me, and likely to many saying Go isn't simple, simple is not a synonym for easy. Go is easy, but it is not simple. For example, solving the problem of generics in
197.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Go is not simple, it's easy. The difference, for example is: Go invents an abstraction just for one use case, and just for the standard library/runtime itself, instead of taking the time to create a universal version of that abstr
198.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Imho, most features of Rust that people would like to see in Go would still fit into the "concept" of Go. Just like they added generics, they could add just three things: A generic container for errors (Result), one for saner Nil
199.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
One very subjective, very irrational factor for my borderline hate for Go is that for years the Go zealots gaslighted everyone about every single part of Go. Anything that Go did, no matter if it was the most basic implementation or if othe
200.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I'd argue that at least checked exceptions also require a conscious decision from you. You either need to add the Exception type to your throws clause, or your catch clause. Compared to Go, this is actually better because the type syst
201.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I don't think a language where for every 1 line of functionality, you need 3 lines of error handling boilerplate gets to be called readable. Heck, Go went out of it's way to "subvert expectations" more than the last seas
202.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Any ORM worth it's salt has an escape hatch that allows you to do all those fancy raw SQL queries. But the amount of queries that aren't fancy, and that an ORM is perfectly capable of abstracting away is (imho) 90% of all queries
203.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
It might be nit picking, but that's more the ecosystem or tooling that's great. The language is mediocre, but it's what everyone gushes about. I still remember people gaslighting everyone that any feature Go had was ESSENTIAL
204.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
An interface, esp. when returned from a method, is the best way the define a limited contract. If you return the concrete class, you have the following potential issues: - Very broad, unspecific contract that may even obscure the methods pu
205.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Thank god I'm not the only one. I can still remember when the Go zealots were everywhere (it's cooled down now). Every feature Go didn't have was "too complicated and useless", while the few features it did have wer
206.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
> There are always contract. You simply chose to be ignorant of that fact and fail to interpret breaking those contracts as the root cause of all your problems. This reminds me a lot of the dynamic vs. static typing discussion. Even at a
207.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I have about 1500 hours in OW and OW2. I can't recall ever playing with/against a cheater.
208.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
Is the main problem with cheaters that it's unfair, or that it feels unfair/ruins the experience? Because if you force all the cheaters to hide well enough to look like "normal" players, no one will know, and the game fe
209.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
But you couldn't. After all, there's a lot of hardware based cheats that even KLA can't reliably detect. If you're "not sure if someones cheating or just good", maybe that's a mental problem with you? Put
210.
by LinXitoW 2y ago
I don't expect that. I expect that publicly traded companies will cut corners in developing their kernel extension (like always), turning them into literal root kits waiting for anyone willing to exploit them. See: https://w

More ›