hurril

8 ms·

61.
by hurril 3y ago
My Apple Mac OSX taskbar (sic) is to the left on my screen. Auto-hidden. Just like I keep my taskbar on my Windows-box.
62.
by hurril 3y ago
I find this very interesting: > [...], I can confidently say that async and its interactions with memory are the hard part. (Edit: Making async code properly clean up after itself is also the hard part, unless you use a better async runt
63.
by hurril 3y ago
How about: don't be in EU anymore?
64.
by hurril 3y ago
Can I as an EU citizen please opt out of this nonsens?
65.
by hurril 3y ago
Let's not conflate side effects and effects.
66.
by hurril 3y ago
It's that for a team of a given size, we can only collectively produce so much. So as long as we're always picking tickets of a priority that stakeholders and we deem of the highest priority, then we're doing the right things
67.
by hurril 3y ago
You and I seem to completely agree on this. I really dislike a backlog of bad conscious with things we "mustn't forget". My reasoning is more (akin to yours): if it's a necessary and actually requested or useful feature,
68.
by hurril 3y ago
I am a freelance programmer. I don't wish to out such information here.
69.
by hurril 3y ago
Indeed, we seem to understand each other. A very well put post of you! I've come to appreciate these difference in later efforts to learn functional programming as a way of giving myself more tools. But for the longest time, it was ver
70.
by hurril 3y ago
We don't disagree at all by the looks of it. I was objecting (lol!) to the description of OO as code and data together. _Together_ doesn't carry the necessary weight here because a struct and a module of functions in the same file
71.
by hurril 3y ago
I think this description of what OO is, is flawed and makes people talk past each other: > • What is OO programming? – a programming paradigm that uses "objects" – data structures consisting of datafields and methods together w
72.
by hurril 3y ago
This is correct, a conductor does not need this. But you are not the conductor in this analogy, you are a player of one or more instruments.
73.
by hurril 3y ago
You're making a strawman here, based on a very much false dichotomy. The things you list here are all very important. But something you learn from writing a larger piece of software yourself is that you get to appreciate complexity and
74.
by hurril 3y ago
-Who would pay more for what?- Re-read. That isn't why in the slightest. It isn't about the number of alternatives, it's entirely to do with the cost of producing electricity for the different alternatives. When there's
75.
by hurril 3y ago
Only to an extent. But sure: let's hope for better storage technology. But this also immediately eats away at cycle efficiency. There's a reason nuclear remains, despite cost and apparent risks. It's because it is still less
76.
by hurril 3y ago
It is very hard, yes. A lot of things in the regulations probably have to change because the technology works in reality, as opposed to wind and solar, which only works intermittently. We see news like these when there's a lot of wind
77.
by hurril 3y ago
We, where I live, regularly pay over 26 Cents. Just last week, every day cost us north of 15 EUR a day on the electric bill, and it's not even _that_ cold yet. Because of a lack of nuclear power that used to be there.
78.
by hurril 3y ago
It won't work. What needs to happen for that to work is extreme progress in accumulation technology. It's a pipe dream. You cannot run any industry that requires power or energy on: oh, I wonder what the weather is like tomorrow.
79.
by hurril 3y ago
Nuclear is the least bad idea and electricity prices have nothing to do with Putin's war. But sure, you are right that nuclear is very expensive but it doesn't have to be that way; plus: there are a lot of countries changing their
80.
by hurril 3y ago
Akschully, these are not mutually exclusive.
81.
by hurril 3y ago
When your energy mix is biased towards wind and solar, the market price for energy fluctuates with the weather, basically. So when there's a lot of wind in an area, then energy is cheap (and the wind farms lose money.) When there'
82.
by hurril 3y ago
Exporting coal power. Lovely.
83.
by hurril 3y ago
We pay that and more because both Germany and Sweden decided that nuclear power is a bad idea. You would pay even more if we weren't selling, which in a sense would be more fair because then you would bear the consequences of your own
84.
by hurril 3y ago
And then it stops blowing so they buy all our Swedish electricity, making us all pay for the german environment. Except the germans.
85.
by hurril 3y ago
I would love for you to disagree, but for that to happen, you have to address the points of my arguments, which none of you have. The things you in particular mention goes towards my point, not against it. We are probably mostly in agreemen
86.
by hurril 3y ago
Sure. But since the point has to do with how Java compares to alternatives when it comes to needing frameworks in the first place, this doesn't add to your point. It detracts from it.
87.
by hurril 3y ago
They aren't part of a technical argument. The root parent of this discussion pertains to the value of frameworks. In this context, I am making the claim that Java and Java programmers need frameworks and that hating them is basically m
88.
by hurril 3y ago
Which happens to be my point.
89.
by hurril 3y ago
You forgot "To be generally useful". And as I've stated many times now in this thread: the proof lies in what job ads mention. They _never_ look for Java programmers without Spring Boot. > If I can write useful software in
90.
by hurril 3y ago
The problem with boilerplate was never in creating it fast enough. It's with maintaining it. Does the AI help you with that too?

More ›