chipdart

38 ms·

421.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Computer programmers have ruined plenty of lives from the post office scandal to the gambling industry. That's like saying the cleaning crew at the local police station have ruined plenty of lives due to police brutality.
422.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Fair enough, but the fact that GitLab was better 6 years ago doesn't do much to help the company right now. I don't think you got the point. The whole point is that a couple of years ago GitLab was unquestionably the market l
423.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I'll go rather go back to paper than to just move every last bit of my companies data into the hands of a single company (looking at you, Microsoft). To me, given he critical importance of a working CICD, it feels like Microsoft c
424.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Stuff like integrations that don't seem to really serve any purpose other than to say they are integrated. I don't think integrations are the example you think it is. The ones I tried work well and make it trivial to setup fe
425.
by chipdart 2y ago
> After using gitlab for a year I can boldly claim that it is inferior to github in every feature with subtle things being better in github which add up to a far better experience. I find this remark baffling by how much it contrasts wit
426.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I've also never felt compelled to use Gitlab. They literally offer no significant advantage other than being an alternative to Github. I completely disagree. GitLab undoubtedly has the best CICD service. GitHub Actions feel poorly
427.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Decades ago, PG wrote that he didn't use a database for Viaweb, and that it seemed odd for web apps to be frontends to databases when desktop apps were not[0]. After reading the link, I don't think that database means the sam
428.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I get the desire to experiment with interesting things, but it seems like such a huge waste of time to avoid having to learn the most basic aspects of MySQL or postgres. For server-based database engines you can still make an argument
429.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Agreed. Reinventing the WAL means reinventing (or ignoring) all the headaches that come with it. But if the blogger learned SQLite, how would they have a topic to blog about? Also, no benchmarks. It's quite odd that an argument gr
430.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Except the compiler still needs to ensure that if an exception bubbles through a noexcept function, std::terminate will be called, even if the exception were caught at some level above. That's the failsafe I mentioned. > Genera
431.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Posting credentials and substantiating claims are two different things. Are they, though? I mean, there are neither credentials nor claim substantiation.
432.
by chipdart 2y ago
> What a horrible thing to say. That's what snake oil salesmen said while clutching at their precious pearls. How dare anyone ask them to substantiate their claims?
433.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Trying to understand a big existing codebase might be more difficult than rewriting a small subset for your own use case (...) Adding a small feature to an existing codebase will never require more work than implementing a minimal work
434.
by chipdart 2y ago
> On the other hand, maintaining a custom tool vs a patched fork is not that dissimilar, is it? You're somehow ignoring all the development work you need to invest to go from zero to alternative implementation, not to mention the ma
435.
by chipdart 2y ago
> My point was about the bureaucracy of contributing back upstream. There is no bureaucracy. Once you have your patch, you can post a PR. Click on a button, write a description, and you're done. That's it. Posting a PR is hardl
436.
by chipdart 2y ago
> 1. If I have to get back to this project several months in the future, it might be a lot of trouble to bring the fork up-to-date. What's the trouble? What compells you to "bring the fork up-to-date"? > The fork might
437.
by chipdart 2y ago
> It's a compromised and goofy implementation with lots of warts. I don't think this case qualifies as an example. I think the only goofy detail in the story is expecting a random number generator to be non-random and determini
438.
by chipdart 2y ago
> All noexcept does is catch any exception and immediately std::terminate. I don't think this is a decent interpretation of what no except does. It misses the whole point of this feature, and confuses a failsafe with the point of us
439.
by chipdart 2y ago
> There are countless scenarios where you want deterministic random numbers (for testing if nothing else), so std's distributions are unusable. Fortunately you can just plug in Boost's implementation. I don't understand wh
440.
by chipdart 2y ago
Your comment makes no sense at all. You do not need to get a PR merged before you can use your changes. You work out a patch, use it locally to meet your needs, post a PR, and you move on with your life regardless of whether your PR is merg
441.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I ended up having to write my own basic protobuf parser (...) Wouldn't it have been far more efficient to contribute back to protoc? Certainly posting a patch to a parser takes far fewer work than writing an alternative implementa
442.
by chipdart 2y ago
> There is no way I am using my phone for anything other than making a phone call when I am sitting in front of my computer. That's perfectly fine. The key aspect is that people are spending less time in front of a computer and are
443.
by chipdart 2y ago
That's not a problem with the concept of being oncall. That's an entirely different problem that's not technical nor operational not industry-specific.
444.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Probably unpopular opinion: git submodules are just fine. They're "just" lacking a consistent UI. I second the sentiment. Git submodules work just fine. The UX could use some work. It baffles me why bolting on convoluted
445.
by chipdart 2y ago
> First of all, they were not making this comment in order to justify why they didn't get promoted. You claimed they were purposely lounging at L6. I called bullshit on that, and explicitly mentioned Aesop's "The fox and t
446.
by chipdart 2y ago
> There is a cost to having on-call. Whether it's in the extra hours you are paying your engineers or other technicians, or sleep deprivation, dwindling motivation and performance, the cost is always there. I don't understand y
447.
by chipdart 2y ago
> (...) they claim L7 responsibility/compensation ratios for their dept are completely out of wack. I have to call bullshit on this take. Last time I checked, less than 1% ever make it to L6, let alone L7. because it is extremely co
448.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Software engineers having "on call" schedules at all is crazy to me. You shouldn't be writing code at 3am to fix a bug after working all day just to turn around and work the next day as well. Oncall is only crazy to anyo
449.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Unions reward seniority over everything else, including skill. I'd much rather have the current environment of being able to leave for something better without starting over again at the bottom of the pile. Let's see if you s
450.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Sure - but I don't support the RTO order for people hired remote during pandemic without a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when hired. There was a totally unambiguous "this is just temporary" when

More ›