chipdart

10 ms·

61.
by chipdart 2y ago
> cannot agree. It's just "feel-good thinking." Not really. There's nothing inherently special about people who dedicated enough time to learn a subject. > "Everybody can do everything." Well, that's
62.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I think the ML people want to get (a narrow band) of stuff done and ivory towered people want to understand a prove things. ML is applied mathematic. Both are needed. I don't agree. First of all, ladder-pulling in math is observed
63.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I agree with the sentiment of this. I think our obsession with innate mathematical skill and genius is so detrimental to the growth mindset that you need to have in order to learn things. I would argue something different. The "sk
64.
by chipdart 2y ago
> In my experience, the mess created using OOP is harder to untangle than the mess created using a functional approach. OP complained about accidental complexity, not subjective takes on how hard it is to refactor code. Even so, anyone w
65.
by chipdart 2y ago
> A. OOP as practically implemented for the last 25 years is glueing functions to state I see you opt to go with a huge amount of handwaving over the question. > Functions and structs. That's what a class is, and thus OOP, except
66.
by chipdart 2y ago
> OOP is an industry of its own which generates a ton of incidental complexity. I think you're confusing "OOP is used in projects and I've seen accidental complexity in projects" with "OOP generates accidental co
67.
by chipdart 2y ago
> What helped me was to track Sprint Volatility in addition to Sprint Velocity. I dread to imagine the number of bike shedding meetings and planning poker it takes to change a 5 to a 3 or 7.
68.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I agree, this is a problem, but there should be a trivial solution: Users of the browser should pay a small amount of "money" for the product they use all day every day. What a brain-dead idea. Having to pay for something doe
69.
by chipdart 2y ago
> 1) does it though? It seems like the Google-specific parts of it are pretty ancillary to the whole experience You're unwittingly describing the textbook definition of anticompetitive practices only made possible by abusing a domin
70.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I think inexperienced developers write complex code because it's difficult to write simple code and they don't know how yet, not because they're trying to make it complex. From what I've been seeing, inexperienced d
71.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I think it's especially bad advice with the "copy paste once is okay". You absolutely do not want multiple (even just two) copies of what's meant to be exactly the same functionality, since now they can accidentally
72.
by chipdart 2y ago
From the article: > Copy-paste is OK once. The second time you're introducing duplication (i.e., three copies), don't. You should have enough data points to create a good enough abstraction. There's already a principle tha
73.
by chipdart 2y ago
> They're a good idea, but not a substitute for knowing the rules. It's a good thing no one made that claim, then. The whole point is that were seeing people in this thread making all sort of wild claims on how it's virtua
74.
by chipdart 2y ago
> So you're suggesting that people should just wrap everything in Arc (...) You're the only one who managed to come up with this nonsense. No one else did, and clearly you did not pick that from what I wrote because I definitel
75.
by chipdart 2y ago
> No one really claimed it was easy to learn. It's a great example of unintended comedy the fact that the comment right below yours is literally "Rust is easy to learn and user friendly." https://news.ycombinat
76.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Well there's your problem. Rust does look like a semi-colon language, that's intentional, but if that's all you understand you're probably going to struggle. This is a silly point to make. What makes a C++ programme
77.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Those tools can't reliably identify undefined behaviour. I'm sorry, can you explain what leads you to believe your hypothetical scenario is an argument rejecting the use of static code analysis tools? I mean, I'm stating
78.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Anyone who has managed to become proficient in C++ is smart enough to be proficient in Rust. I'm not sure you're paying attention. The people who are saying Rust is too hard are the Rust community itself. They said so in Rust
79.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I was responding to "I'd love to hear exactly how a monolith application is guaranteed to perform better, with details." I asked nothing about Netflix. My question was directed at your remark regarding monoliths vs micro
80.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Which is the point TFA is making. Again, the point is wrong in more than one way. You don't simply add undefined behavior. It's wrong, and buggy code. Onboard a static code analysis tool like cppcheck to tell you when you mes
81.
by chipdart 2y ago
> Rust is easy to learn and user friendly. But if you are stuck in your ways (...) It's high time that people in the Rust community such as you just stop with this act. The Rust community itself already answered that they find &quot
82.
by chipdart 2y ago
> This just seems to be the standard excuse I read any time someone has a critique of Rust. The guys who parrot this blend of comments don't seem to be aware that cognitive load is a major problem, not a badge of honor.
83.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I think it's telling that whenever someone raises concerns about any element of Rust, no matter how constructively (...) I'm far from a Rust expert, but to me if someone is whining about how it is hard to track lifecycle rule
84.
by chipdart 2y ago
> I have memorised the UB rules for C. Why? What's wrong with using one of the many static code analysis tool to tell you about them if/when they appear?
85.
by chipdart 2y ago
From the article: > This is painful because I am an experienced C++ programmer, and C++ has this exact problem except worse: undefined behavior. In the worst case, C++ simply doesn’t check anything, compiles your code wrong, and then doe
86.
by chipdart 2y ago
> It's not guaranteed, but much fewer points of failure. Can you explain where this is relevant to buffering issues? Also, you are very wrong regarding failure modes. The larger the service, the more failure modes it has. Moreover,
87.
by chipdart 2y ago
> It's sad that tech employees won't collaborate to push back on management. Some employees are like the Boxer character from Animal Farm[1]. I vividly recall Amazon employees complaining about Amazon's new leadership prin
88.
by chipdart 2y ago
> There's almost zero chance they backtrack on this. Amazon is looking to reduce costs, this is fairly cheap since people will quit. Anyone who is irreplaceable will be exempted. This was very clear from the start, even the timing o
89.
by chipdart 2y ago
Don't post rage bait from the Telegraph. This isn't Twitter.
90.
by chipdart 2y ago
> The only service performing well is a closed source one that could simply use a real chess engine for questions that look like chess, for marketing purposes. That conspiracy theory holds no traction in reality. This blog post is so far

More ›