jeremiep

33 ms·

241.
by jeremiep 10y ago
The difference is scale. Only a handful of companies run at Netflix scale. I wouldn't trust developers to do what Chaos Monkey does at such a scale, no matter how good you think they are.
242.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I've seen a game engine built on shared_ptr that had trouble getting a 2D game performing well on the PS3. Its not that C++ will bloat your program, its that many programmers don't understand the tradeoffs of the primitives they&#
243.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I see that mentality in every language, even if its worse in C++ because "close to metal" and "we know C++, therefore we must be good programmers". What usually happens is that the code gets unreadable/unmaintainabl
244.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Why is length automatically associated to spaghetti? I've seen way too much spaghetti clean code to agree. Soon everything is its own 20 lines class file and you're buried in well documented technical debt and drowning in files; l
245.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Nothing unusual there. It looks like its built on top of irrlicht which probably brings in its own framework view of the world to begin with. 200+ lines functions happen MUCH MORE than you think in AAA code; why split a function if there&#x
246.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I switched from Emacs, had already read https://gist.github.com/nifl/1178878 a few months prior which got me REALLY curious about Vim. I was using Emacs Prelude before and spent vast amounts of time customising my Emac
247.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I switched to Spacemacs a few months ago and didn't look back since. Its basically Emacs+Vim+Steroids+More. Just the leader key and layers alone are incredibly powerful concepts Spacemacs brings on top of Emacs/Vim :)
248.
by jeremiep 10y ago
> The usefulness of types is in them describing the input/output dependencies in your code. I agree, but I find types way too weak in that respect. Its not enough to know a function accepts ints; I want to know its range as well. I
249.
by jeremiep 10y ago
What does Java have to do with big monolithic apps? I think you're confusing complex application domains with bloat. Go is supposed to be a systems programming language. That means a very, very wide range of possible domains, where for
250.
by jeremiep 10y ago
So you're saying we shouldn't have operating systems, browsers, video games and all that good stuff? Most actual engineering is very far from writing a dumb server for yet another CRUD app :)
251.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Simplicity will help me understand my code 6 months down the road; everything else is superficial and noise in comparison. You can't hold more than ~7 things at once in your head; once things are that simple you can see bugs a mile awa
252.
by jeremiep 10y ago
> Well then you don't have to test what happens when someone passes a string, an object, or a boolean. That's useless, I still need to test the value's range which implicitly checks the type. > You have to maintain docu
253.
by jeremiep 10y ago
> but that's good too, else we would not have jobs. Given how mediocre the average software out there is, I'd much much rather have an industry focus on actual engineering. Its a lot more profitable to find new problems to sol
254.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Yes I agree type inference is wonderful! But when the underlying type-system is just C# I feel like I'm given a half-assed solution. What good is having a int type if you can't limit its range? I'm not going to maintain BOTH
255.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Both styles still encourage a lot of mutability and complexity throughout the codebase. The vast majority of typed web codebases I've seen were exercises in Java Enterprise development of various degrees. Generics or not the time spent
256.
by jeremiep 10y ago
> It returns Promise<T> That still doesn't say anything; is the action referentially transparent? is that a delay? a network call? All a Promise tells me is that the result will come at a later point in time. > It doesn&#x2
257.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Oh I know, but my opinion and experience in half a dozen statically typed languages over a decade is that most type systems add much more overhead to development than agility. I do want types when building native software, because these sit
258.
by jeremiep 10y ago
How so? That type would be a glorified string at best. Types can't check the ranges of their values in most languages. And definitely can't do so at runtime.
259.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I looked at SO much Java sources because the method signatures weren't complete enough. I would never have been able to integrate netty into our game servers that optimally with only the docs as reference for one. Yet its documentation
260.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I used to like ReSharper but quickly uninstalled it from the large amount of false positives it reported. Back when I did C# last year I was doing 2D skeletal animations in Unity3D and pretty much wrote the most non-idiomatic C# code ever.
261.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Yes but my point was that this is very incomplete information to do engineering with. You're still going to look at the source to learn what side-effects are present or how your arguments are used. Not taking these details into account
262.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I'd rather have tests than types. Unless your type-system is sound; most of them are very, very far from it. You can specify the domain of values with types, but not their ranges. Side-effects fall through unaffected by types as well.
263.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I feel this is just a myth. I'm constantly looking at the source even with static types. Unless you're having a Haskell-like type-system the function's signature will still miss most of what the function is actually doing.
264.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I don't get this. Most of the known refactorings can't be easily implemented by IDEs so you're left with the trivial ones like renaming or moving things. Static types won't help you refactor a monster class into a struct
265.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Same here, I hate it when I land in a TypeScript codebase where they followed "clean code" and "best practices" and have nice OOP abstractions everywhere.. its always a kludgy monstrosity that yields everything but actua
266.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Every time I hear McMansion now I'm reminded of this recent submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12286724 Great read, but probably off-topic.
267.
by jeremiep 10y ago
It would take hundred of thousands of people to make a dent in Facebook that way. Having a handful of people in the right committees will have a much, much bigger impact than years of dissatisfied users ever will. (Same goes for manifestati
268.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Why is it so hard to imagine universes bigger than our own? That's like saying "I only own a computer with 10Gb of memory, so certainly a program using 20Gb is impossible!"
269.
by jeremiep 10y ago
I'd rather see articles about how to manage complexity at scale rather than about performance in apps so simple you'd be better off in raw javascript anyways. Show me a framework which handles optimistic updates, knows how to quer
270.
by jeremiep 10y ago
Why not just use Clojure? You've got datomic on the server and datascript on the client, transit on the wire, reader conditionals to share code and much more. Plus everything can be modified as its running. When it comes to web framewo

More ›