amw-zero

32 ms·

301.
by amw-zero 5y ago
The people that don't like him don't enjoy any books. They just enjoy "getting stuff done." That's really what I find when talking to people about why they don't like concepts that he introduces. They have no a
302.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Generics introduce complexity. That’s pretty undeniable. There are also cases where generics provide much better solutions to problems. That is also undeniable. As someone who’s working in a Go codebase at work, I’m happy they added generic
303.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Yea but, it has never been a particularly popular approach.
304.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I’m sure they mean that because they are not applicable to the rest of the language. It’s like, the Go creators recognized the situation where generics were necessary, but only used it for slices and maps. I really don’t think they were say
305.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Human nature though. When a topic is extremely complicated, or there’s some kind of power to be gained, we resort to tribalism. Both are present in software. We’ve made societal progress on a lot of things, but not so much on this one. For
306.
by amw-zero 5y ago
It’s pretty clear that these numbers are made up. Software engineering is an incredibly multi-dimensional field, and it is not a fact that learning on the job is beneficial to anyone let alone employers. And you assume so many things that w
307.
by amw-zero 5y ago
You're missing the fact that they have a pretty much limitless supply of capital, and _have still not been profitable_. It's not as simple as "just raise your prices." I would think that's pretty obvious. Why wouldn
308.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Here’s another review / critique of this book, but with a full implementation based on the author’s grievances: https://enterprisecraftsmanship.com/posts/growing-object-ori... . The main point of it is to avoid tes
309.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Didn’t Yarn 3 just come out?
310.
by amw-zero 5y ago
They go hand in hand, because values can still implement protocols.
311.
by amw-zero 5y ago
You can turn A->B, B->A into A->I,B->A + A.I=B and that does avoid a circular dependency. A->B means a depends on B, A->I means A depends on an interface, and A.I=B means that B is set as the implementation of the I interf
312.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Sure but the purpose of software is to build a program that works correctly. We're not building sunsets.
313.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I feel the opposite. By understanding what software is at its core, I can both appreciate it more, and build it better.
314.
by amw-zero 5y ago
For me, there’s no better explanation possible than the description of software behavior in Specifying Systems by Leslie Lamport: > Formally, we define a behavior to be a sequence of states, where a state is an assignment of values to va
315.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Everything has limitations. I deeply trust the system that has served us extremely well over the last 150 years.
316.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I don’t believe in historical accidents. We “ended up” with set theory because it’s an incredibly rich system that has powered almost every important mathematical discovery in the last 150 years. We use it because it is the most effective t
317.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Honestly, just HATEOAS. If you can change your client’s behavior without actually re-deploying it, you’re doing yourself and team a huge favor. Even just backwards compatible server changes are worth it.
318.
by amw-zero 5y ago
It might help to consider the history of types and sets. Sets (and consequently modern math and logic) have not been around for as long as we might think. Maybe we had them in different forms, but sets as we know them today were born in 187
319.
by amw-zero 5y ago
This is probably one of the most practical ones to read. REST is so much more than "/noun/id" routes.
320.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Maybe this is why we can’t ever speak in generalities in this industry. I was going to say the exact opposite - almost all business logic I write comes _after_ the query is made. But I prefer a more DDD-like approach where logic is encoded
321.
by amw-zero 5y ago
this did occur to me while reading the post - why not just generate assembly from the specifications? What's the point of the intermediate translation to C?
322.
by amw-zero 5y ago
> Suppose you need to add new features or fix a bug, to do so you will need all of the original specifications and code generation tools. Yes, that is the point of code generation. You had a positive sentiment towards Rust - Rust has a c
323.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Performance is not a part of behavior. Specification is about specifying logical behavior and that's it. I don't know of any specification framework that supports saying anything about performance.
324.
by amw-zero 5y ago
There's just always a "who watches the watcher" recursive paradox with formal specification / verification. Who ensures the specification is a good one? I believe it is just that - a logical paradox. It cannot be answere
325.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I can't comment on whether or not this will definitely be the future of programming, though I do think it's interesting. The more interesting thing to me is just the idea of separation logic. The functional programming community h
326.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Are you aware that a huge percentage of accepted math proofs have errors in them? https://lamport.azurewebsites.net/tla/proof-statistics.html . The worm at the core of all formal verification is that we mistakenly belie
327.
by amw-zero 5y ago
From everything I’ve heard about SQLite testing, it is absolutely an exception to the ‘normal’ state! I hadn’t heard that they took direct inspiration from DO-178B, so thanks for sharing that. That’s a great data point :)
328.
by amw-zero 5y ago
> Not if you're writing your unit tests correctly. Thought should go into what you're testing. I hear this all the time. “If you just write your tests correctly, you will not have any bugs.” A statement like this can only be ma
329.
by amw-zero 5y ago
What is the point of the initial test if you’re just going to delete it.
330.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Then what is the point of it being there in the first place?

More ›