amw-zero

44 ms·

241.
by amw-zero 5y ago
The post is just this web page. You just need to read the posted link.
242.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I'm not advocating for CQRS or any of that, I've personally never used it on a project. But, the reason that architectures are associated with DDD is that DDD is fundamentally a philosophy or an idea. Certain software designs achi
243.
by amw-zero 5y ago
That's not how lines of code work - more lines can be more clear and easier to write. There are extremely concise mathematical proofs that require extreme amount of time to produce, whereas a more verbose proof takes a simpler approach
244.
by amw-zero 5y ago
If there were a way to produce bounded context boundaries by following a general pattern / algorithm, what would that be? I fail to see how they can be created usefully without lot's of conversations with domain experts plus elbow
245.
by amw-zero 5y ago
First, you weren’t condescending to me, you were condescending to someone else. Second, saying “you have no idea what you’re talking about” is aggressive, not condescending. “Have you actually tried X?” is condescending, because it places y
246.
by amw-zero 5y ago
> By far the bulk of mathematical results in the last 100 years have demonstrated no real world function How absolutely arrogant and unappreciative of you to say. You are very divorced from reality. That much is clear - normally I don’t
247.
by amw-zero 5y ago
It is very fair to say that this is: a) far too extreme of a position to be useful to anyone b) not true in any sense of the word Classical logic has been behind the bulk of mathematical results in the last 100 years or so. It may not be pe
248.
by amw-zero 5y ago
This was the condescending part: > Have you actually tried to reduce dependencies? > I mean, are you speaking from experience, or just theorizing?
249.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Yea, I think putting it that way is an overreach of the law of excluded middle / bivalence.
250.
by amw-zero 5y ago
You hit the nail on the head, using your own words. > selective retry on failures This is why your test suite passes, not because of an avoidance of outdated tech or poor practices. You rerun your flaky tests until they pass. That’s bad
251.
by amw-zero 5y ago
You don’t need to be condescending. We all know that using dependencies saves time, and it’s not possible to build any practical software without them. An OS is a dependency. A GUI library is a dependency. A database is a dependency. Sure,
252.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Go is pretty darn good at avoiding breaking changes to the standard library. But, um, do you remember Python 3? You just proved my point with that one, in your own words.
253.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Honestly, the entire part of the post before getting to categories is what I think is most useful for the broadest range of people. We often look at "logic" and "mathematics" as one thing, and even more than that, we loo
254.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Gödel's incompleteness theorem is very similar to the halting problem, in that they are both really profound results, but they have almost no bearing on the practical benefits of logic / computation. In the halting problem example
255.
by amw-zero 5y ago
My disbelief of you is from my own experiences writing them, and talking to dozens of colleagues across different companies. Every single company has to heavily parallelize their e2e tests, and pays a huge CI bill on top of effort maintaini
256.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I completely agree with you, but your last point is exactly why recent updates are a proxy for ‘well-maintained.’ Software is so complex that it _has_ to have dependencies, and even if you vendor them / compile to an executable, that d
257.
by amw-zero 5y ago
No, that test doesn’t give you any useful information, because all it told you was that your expected answer wasn’t found in the configured time interval. You have no way of knowing whether or not your expected behavior would be satisfied i
258.
by amw-zero 5y ago
A more accurate way to look at this based on your example is that, sometimes listAnimals returns [cat, dog, mouse], and sometimes it returns null. It’s not that the result is nondeterministic, it’s that _whether or not the result is returne
259.
by amw-zero 5y ago
This is what’s known as “counterintuition.” You would think that you could, but you are wrong. I’m not saying you can’t write a passing end to end test. Of course you can get it to pass some times. But they are inherently non-deterministic.
260.
by amw-zero 5y ago
This argument does not account for the fact that all e2e tests are non-deterministic, so the quality of your “setup” is not relevant.
261.
by amw-zero 5y ago
No, it’s because end to end tests are non-deterministic with respect to execution time. They are deterministic only in their discrete states. This is why all end to end testing involves polling to wait for asynchronous operations to complet
262.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I flat out don’t believe you.
263.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Picture a test that doesn’t involve any clicking of UI elements. That’s a start. So right there you’re avoiding the complexities of UI rendering, you just call the commands that are invoked by clicking directly. Also, you can test frontend
264.
by amw-zero 5y ago
> Sounds like this specific e2e suite was poorly optimized and was killed instead of rewritten/optimized due to a perceived notion that inefficiences are inherent in all e2e suites. If you maintain speed and strict curation of such
265.
by amw-zero 5y ago
There's basically no value in having tests against third-party code anyway, because all the test is going to do is tell you that they broke their interface. And by then, production is already broken.
266.
by amw-zero 5y ago
All end to end tests are non-deterministic due to asynchrony. At some point you have to trust the discrete states of your software.
267.
by amw-zero 5y ago
I’m very into stuff like this, and I really can’t make heads or tails of what this post is about. There’s a ton of hand waving, and a ton of words, but why not use them to explain exactly what this thing is doing?
268.
by amw-zero 5y ago
They have independent brains though. I don’t think it’s a useful data point.
269.
by amw-zero 5y ago
The only way I would take a new programming language seriously is if it doesn’t cater to current conventions. Other than that, there’s no point in making a new one. We don’t need new languages that just repeat the same ideas.
270.
by amw-zero 5y ago
Canonical from a programming languages perspective.

More ›