motorest

41 ms·

871.
by motorest 1y ago
"completely offline" also doesn't sound like a problem with a software project. At best it's a particular managed service experiencing downtime. Would Linux be to blame if my power supply goes up in smoke?
872.
by motorest 1y ago
> I'm curious, why hasn't Valkey picked up corporate sponsors to the degree OpenTofu did when HashiCorp changed Terraform's licensing? You seem to be completely out of the loop. Valkey is backed by AWS, Google Cloud, Oracl
873.
by motorest 1y ago
> Yes, making money is bad. Open source is only in service of the monopolies. What a spin. Extortion following licensing rug pulls goes way beyond earning a living. Trying to blame victims by framing them as "monopolies" is som
874.
by motorest 1y ago
> If so, is it too little, too late, to turn back the tide? I think so too. At least to me the Redis rug pull forced Redis to be completely out of the picture, and moving forward valkey is the default option. Fool me once, shame on you.
875.
by motorest 1y ago
> If you're in a "real-world" job - framing houses, stocking shelves, flying airplanes - then actually producing is just about the only way. I don't agree. There are plenty of behavioral aspects that turn an otherwise
876.
by motorest 1y ago
> People don’t get promoted for the objective value of their work products. They get promoted for appearances, charisma and vibes. I don't know about that. It sounds too much like cope from people that feel entitled to a promotion i
877.
Concurrency Unit Testing with Coyote(microsoft.github.io)
2 points by motorest 1y ago|0 comments
878.
by motorest 1y ago
> I agree, this is a real benefit of RAII compared to defer. That said, there are disadvantages of making the resource freeing part invisible. RAII doesn't make resource freeing invisible. It makes it obvious, deterministic, and pre
879.
by motorest 1y ago
> Wikipedia says: "RAII is associated most prominently with C++, where it originated, but also Ada,[3] Vala,[4] and Rust" From those you listed, only Rust can be described as mainstream. Do you think that one out of a couple do
880.
by motorest 1y ago
> However, I quickly learned that other languages just do it differently and often even better (ever had to check an error when closing a resource?). I don't think that's even conceptually the same. The point of RAII is that re
881.
by motorest 1y ago
Reading it is an option, then.
882.
by motorest 1y ago
> Rust simply because the constructor being a static method (...) This assertion makes no sense. RAII is not defined by whether you use factory functions or special member functions to initialize an object. In fact, RAII is only incident
883.
by motorest 1y ago
> It is a diservice to C++, to paint RAII as modern C++. I think you're missing context. The term "modern C++" is used to refer to idiomatic C++ introduced in C++11. It has been that way for a couple of decades. https:&#x
884.
by motorest 1y ago
> This seems like an extremely low bar. Is it, though? Most mainstream languages fail to support anything resembling RAII, at least as first-class support. Do you actually have an example of a language that does a better job at resource
885.
by motorest 1y ago
There is also another side to the mass adoption of LLMs in software engineering jobs: they can quite objectively worsen the output of human coders. There is a class of developers who are blindly dumping the output of LLMs into PRs without p
886.
by motorest 1y ago
> But it doesn’t. I recommend you read the article. They explicitly address the usecases of "When your file-based app grows in complexity, or you simply want the extra capabilities afforded in project-based apps".
887.
by motorest 1y ago
> Installing the full dotnet sdk was very high friction, in addition to the full csproj scaffolding. What's the difference between installing .NET or, say, python of node?
888.
by motorest 1y ago
> I’d say anything except long running processes or scripts that take 5+ second to complete. I don't think you're presenting a valid scenario. I mean, the dotnet run file.cs workflow is suited for one-off runs, but even if you&
889.
by motorest 1y ago
> Errm, so how is this different from a folder with a project file? It requires neither a folder nor a project file. Just pass the source file as the argument and you have everything up and running.
890.
by motorest 1y ago
> Great, but unfortunately, even when compiled, the startup overhead is about half a second, which makes it unsuitable for many applications. Which applications are those? I mean, one example they showcase is launching a basic web servic
891.
by motorest 1y ago
> Ecosystem, people keep forgetting syntax, grammar and standard library isn't everything. Ecosystem means nothing if you have comparable or even better alternatives in a framework of choice. Also, it's not like the likes of Py
892.
by motorest 1y ago
> well to do anything new in a C# project one typically ends up making a class inside a new namespace (...) You don't need to. A few years ago, C# introduced top-level statements. They were introduced in 2020, I think. https:/
893.
by motorest 1y ago
> Deciding whether something is netFramework 4.8 or .NET Core 5 or NET3000 or nEt5 or NET Common 2.0 is impossible. Is it, though? The guidelines seem to be pretty straight forward: unless you want to target a new language feature, you c
894.
by motorest 1y ago
> I used to think there's nothing wrong with them either. From your complain, it doesn't seem you're pointing anything wrong with .csproj files. You struggled with a usecases that's far from normal and might not even
895.
by motorest 1y ago
> There's a rule that if something is easy to invent, (...) You seem to be confused. There is nothing being invented in here. What they are announcing is basically an update to the dotnet command line app to support building and ru
896.
by motorest 1y ago
> Maybe one day they'll bite the bullet and let you write a function without extra 10 keywords and a sprinkling of nouns I have no idea what you are talking about. Care to present a single example?
897.
by motorest 1y ago
> Seems like a great PowerShell replacement. It sounds like it can potentially replace way more than PowerShell. I mean, why would a .NET shop even bother with Python or any form of shell scripts if they can attach a shebang on top of an
898.
by motorest 1y ago
What's wrong with .csproj files?
899.
by motorest 1y ago
I feel like top level statements were created specifically to open the door to C# scripts. The syntactic sugar of top level statements doesn't make sense in regular .NET production apps that you need to build and run, but for quick scr
900.
by motorest 1y ago
> It's not even an exploit. MCP is doing what it is MADE TO DO. You still don't understand the problem, do you? I mean, do you even understand the concept of an exploit?

More ›