nendroid

22 ms·

121.
by nendroid 6y ago
The article talks about how SQL lacks composability. I would like to know everyones thoughts about this. This is a huge issue with programming in general not exclusive to SQL. Everyone would like to build programs that are modular and reusa
122.
by nendroid 6y ago
It's not about flipping. The two concepts are actually commutative. You could in theory create syntax that looks like this: FROMCLAUSE * SELECTCLAUSE * WHERECLAUSE = SQLEXPRESSION SELECTCLAUSE * WHERECLAUSE * FROMCLAUSE = SQLEXPR
123.
by nendroid 6y ago
Tables are composable but the expression itself cannot be decomposed. I cannot reuse a where clause somewhere else; that is the fundamental problem the article addresses.
124.
by nendroid 6y ago
What about the main point of the article that SQL is not composable.
125.
by nendroid 6y ago
Regression tests across multiple repos are still required. I don't see how splitting a monorepo into multiple repos gets rid of those tests.
126.
by nendroid 6y ago
Invest in using a gui merge tool. It makes this process 10x easier. Also your complaint is unrelated to monorepos vs. multiple repos. Additionally rebase or merge won't make the conflict issue go away. I recommend companies stop using
127.
by nendroid 6y ago
>At the same time, if you have 10 micro services which are accessed by 1 frontend, it may be a little bit messy to keep all that code in the same place. Why is this messy? Using folders to separate your code has no intrinsic organization
128.
by nendroid 6y ago
Always use a monorepo. There is zero difference between using repos to organize things or using folders to organize things, except for the fact that updated dependencies across repos require extra steps to update if they change. More repos
129.
by nendroid 6y ago
Read my full post.
130.
by nendroid 6y ago
Stand on a mirror. Your reflection will be flipped vertically along the y-axis. Your reflection will be upside down relative to you. The flip happens perpendicular to the surface of the mirror. That's what trips everyone up. They think
131.
by nendroid 6y ago
Nothing is flipped on the xy plane. The flipping happens on the Z-axis. Your reflection is a translation of yourself across the Z-axis into the mirror then a flip along the depth axis so that your reflection faces you. When you look at your
132.
by nendroid 6y ago
You can't prove this at all. How do you know the photons don't pass through the mirror? What you are seeing are photons from the flipped alternate world on the other side of the mirror. Your reflection sees you and you see your re
133.
by nendroid 6y ago
>The words “up” and “down” are absolute, but the words “left” and “right” are relative to you. If we instead of “left” and “right” use the words “south arm” and “north arm”, then the mirror suddenly does not “flip” anything. No dude. The
134.
by nendroid 6y ago
>But sure, I will engage with you on your childish level. See, personal insults. That's why my post went on an expose to get you to say something substantial. Now you engage me because your pride is hurt. >Ironic, isn’t it? Who’s
135.
by nendroid 6y ago
This is not true. Ideas may die, but they may become immortal and spread like a virus. This is completely irrespective of how true or false in actuality an idea is...
136.
by nendroid 6y ago
Taken symbolically it's also dumb. How can it not be? This is a ancient document written to be taken as truth yet the writer decides instead of just writing everything out plainly decides to make everything cryptic and to be taken not
137.
by nendroid 6y ago
So your solution is to fulfill yourself spiritually rather than question the veracity of what you're taught? You desire to reconcile your fallen and sinful nature but your interest is only theological meaning that inconsistent details
138.
by nendroid 6y ago
This guy doesn't get it. The industry for media is way more complex than this and it involves an interplay between media consumers and creators. What is defined as "best" is a constantly moving target because audiences are ge
139.
by nendroid 6y ago
There is nothing misrepresented here. I am simply presenting facts and a conclusion based off of those facts. Other people have different facts and different conclusions based off of those facts. You think, philosophy is legit? Great, I res
140.
by nendroid 6y ago
>Philosophy is not a single school of thought. That's why I quoted you the definition. That's literally the central point of my entire argument, which you continuously have ignored or dismissed out of hand in favor of your pers
141.
by nendroid 6y ago
All concepts can be victims of wordplay regardless of the complexity of the concept. Logic is Logic and religion is religion. These two words are concepts. The word "Philosophy" combining the concepts like religion, morality, scie
142.
by nendroid 6y ago
>You are moving the goalposts. No goal post was moved. All my original points still stand. I am simply giving you the scientific explanation of morality... a deeper look than what philosophy has to offer. And why such an arbitrary constr
143.
by nendroid 6y ago
>I'd like to see a source for that. Really sounds like another strawman to me. "It is more fundamental than science." - entropicdrifter >Rational philosophy is a bare minimum prerequisite to consistent scientific inquir
144.
by nendroid 6y ago
I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying morals are a macro feature arising from a series of accidental mutations as opposed to a macro feature arising as a side effect similar to your snoring example. The complexity of the moral mo
145.
by nendroid 6y ago
>The points you made about morality are points that other philosophers have already made. You are not avoiding philosophy by declaring morality to be arbitrary and defending your assertion, you are in fact doing the opposite and contribu
146.
by nendroid 6y ago
>Trivially, you can show this by pointing to the fact that science branched off of "it". This doesn't hold. Chemistry branched off of alchemy, this doesn't make alchemy real or more fundamental than chemistry. >But
147.
by nendroid 6y ago
It has nothing to do with imprecision. Nor does it have anything to do with objectivity. I'm more talking about the neutrality and "centrality" of the choices of study. Something like ethics and religion are more a biased cho
148.
by nendroid 6y ago
Many people hold it as something more fundamental than science, which is ultimately what I'm "attacking"
149.
by nendroid 6y ago
Yeah, I agree. I'm more arguing for the fact that philosophy is not more fundamental than science. Think of it in the sense of in the big quest to answer the big fundamental question of existence we likely won't find it through ph
150.
by nendroid 6y ago
>Sorry but you'll have to explain how universality makes an area of knowledge more important, useful, serious or any other similar adjective. The human experience not only exists, but it's by definition central to us, so how is

More ›