hmeh

9 ms·

31.
by hmeh 3y ago
I too appreciate your engagement. I understand that HN can be merciless, and I do try to be direct, which can sometimes be felt as merciless or harsh. I'm trying to give my unadulterated perspective because I care about the outcomes fo
32.
by hmeh 3y ago
Understood, and perhaps the difference here is more about what I said in my other comment. I don't see this as particularly useful, and I see it as deceptive. What matters is that when we intend to do something is that it happens. We a
33.
by hmeh 3y ago
This would likely require a longer, higher bandwidth conversation than we could or should do in a comment thread. If you're interested, you can join me in the Eventide Slack [4], but I will warn you there's already some discussion
34.
by hmeh 3y ago
I see elsewhere you mention that you use at most once processing. So, I was possibly mistaken that the function can be called more than once assuming you did this right (cleared the job before even invoking the job). My primary point still
35.
by hmeh 3y ago
Without looking at the code, I can tell you that this will reproduce one of two things: 1. Invoke function that has two side effects 2. Function does first side effect 3. Pull the computer's plug out of the wall A framework can only do
36.
by hmeh 3y ago
Yeah, exactly. DCOM was a failure for the same reason that every other RPC thing is a failure. It turns out that introducing cascading failure or partial failure opportunities due to synchronous remote calls was never a good idea. It was al
37.
by hmeh 3y ago
Yes, quite. Unless my function has no side-effects, idempotency will always be my responsibility. This feature is a lie and an outright hazard. It should not be called idempotency and it should have a big bold warning stating that the fun
38.
by hmeh 3y ago
The problem though is that you're taking the known failure mode interpretation of microservices (what we call a distributed monolith) and making it "easier" by adding significantly more complexity. As many of the other commen
39.
by hmeh 3y ago
I wouldn't say it's often anymore, but it happens. It comes with the territory. We can sometimes avoid giving them class names by targeting them with things like immediate child selectors. We do end up with mechanical class names
40.
by hmeh 3y ago
Given that the only comments worth having are typically those that explain why, and an AI would have a hell of a time knowing why code was the way it was, there's very little chance that this does anything but add noise. It's exac
41.
by hmeh 3y ago
That’s all it does?
42.
by hmeh 3y ago
I didn’t know what it was until someone posted a reply to my comment. I don’t have an Android device and I can’t be bothered to fill in the obvious gaps the author left when the thing isn’t of immediate consequence to me. It wasn’t intentio
43.
by hmeh 3y ago
Or it's to call to the carpet the people that are enforcing "stack requirements" of tooling that is overly complex for the job. > I've seen projects with many engineers breaking each other's features because they
44.
by hmeh 3y ago
Anyone that has a mental model that includes what ATMs do. The point is that most people don't use ADB and therefore don't have that mental model. Many people have used an ATM, so if an article talked about someone stealing cards&
45.
by hmeh 3y ago
If I recall, the article seemed to indicate that certain apps would be broken. I would be worried that apps I relied on would not function anymore. This has nothing to do with me using ADB, it has to do with apps using it (at least from h
46.
by hmeh 3y ago
Thank you for the correction/reminder. But I might just start pronouncing it Ahdib so I don't have to acknowledge I made a mistake. Kidding. Thanks.
47.
by hmeh 3y ago
> The markup doesn't need meaningful class names because CSS is encapsulated in reusable HTML fragments that have meaningful names. They have meaningful names... where? In React (or whatever). They don't in the web inspector (s
48.
by hmeh 3y ago
I've also made this argument, but I was wrong. It turns out it's also possible to model a UI. And, it's possible to do that relatively well with HTML. You can see web components or React for contemporary examples of doing thi
49.
by hmeh 3y ago
> CSS doesn’t scale across teams/dependencies in its vanilla form in my experience, not at all. In your experience. It was my experience too, until it wasn't. See this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39501
50.
by hmeh 3y ago
For what it's worth, I was exactly where you are 3 years ago. I made all of the same arguments. I saw the value in Tailwind. I had come from rebuilding a CSS system for another application multiple times because we never could get it t
51.
by hmeh 3y ago
Instead of letting our tools lead us by the nose, what if we let design principles lead us? Why would a styling tool lead me to model my markup? That's the complete inverse of how one should be thinking about it. You model the markup f
52.
by hmeh 3y ago
Sure, Tailwind isn't inline styles. Fine. That doesn't make it good. And yes, most CSS is average or below average in implementation. Most software is too. That's just statistics. Tailwind is an attempt to prevent people from
53.
by hmeh 3y ago
Have you ever tried making your SCSS/CSS codebases not a huge monstrosity? It can be done.
54.
by hmeh 3y ago
It's not about DRY. It's about modeling. It's about design. It's about being able to look at markup (as a human) and tell what the heck it is. Tailwind soup obscures what things are. How many of your Tailwind-using apps
55.
by hmeh 3y ago
Of course it would be. Even in your example, I would know that KDE is a desktop environment, which, from KDE alone, I would not. ADB is a debug bridge (apparently), which means it's a debugging tool, which means it likely wouldn't
56.
by hmeh 3y ago
I appreciate people taking the time to write articles like this, but please consider the people who are going to read it. ADB is an acronym. Not everyone knows what it means. If you're going to write an entire article about a feature b
57.
by hmeh 3y ago
I'm afraid the answer to this doesn't actually lie in tooling. It lies in software design. If something needs to be controlled, it needs to be controllable. Typically this means push. In a React component, this means props. It cou
58.
by hmeh 3y ago
Por que no los dos? I map caps lock to escape on tap, ctrl on hold.
59.
by hmeh 3y ago
If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that if two people are pairing and the one with the better idea does not successfully communicate their idea, either from lack of trying or lack of effectiveness, then the person
60.
by hmeh 3y ago
Pair programming is, first and foremost, a technique for implementing continuous review. The old adage: If code reviews are good, do them constantly and continuously. We pair/mob when appropriate, and we don't do pull requests. If

More ›