sidlls

45 ms·

451.
by sidlls 4y ago
"Outside of Stackoverflow results (which, thankfully, are at the top of the page), most articles are written for a broad, beginner audience (like a React article starting with a tutorial on installing React)." This is the result o
452.
by sidlls 4y ago
At one point when I was in academia I had to write drivers for Windows to control some scientific equipment for our experiments. I remember it being a damn nightmare compared to even the VAX we had (which, granted, was basically just a toy
453.
by sidlls 4y ago
This is a very polite and optimistic way of putting it. Having been in this industry for 15+ years now, I have a more jaundiced view.
454.
by sidlls 4y ago
You’re talking about a different kind/level of abstraction. I’m referring to abstractions built within a language; there isn’t a direct; meaningful comparison to the abstraction of, say, a language over machine code. Spring Boot isn’t
455.
by sidlls 4y ago
That is the value proposition of these frameworks. They work in some cases, and for services/applications where the complexity is generally low. They come with a big restriction, though: a very narrow, highly constrained ("opinion
456.
by sidlls 4y ago
This is one of the better things about Go and its community: eschewing frameworks like this. Having an ecosystem of in-house libraries tailored to your products' use cases is not the same as developing an "ad-hoc framework"
457.
by sidlls 4y ago
In fairness accusations of corruption to remove political opponents or "troublemakers" have a long and storied history of application by genocidal dictatorships like China, democracies, and basically every form of government. So m
458.
by sidlls 4y ago
It's more likely that they're just not interested in "hard hitting" news of that sort. It's more profitable to push a narrative that keeps things simmering for the news cycles. Our media aren't controlled centr
459.
by sidlls 4y ago
Generics as currently implemented in go are so limited that you may as well stick with interfaces for anything but trivial boilerplate or textbook data structure/algorithm implementations. For example, it's currently impossible to
460.
by sidlls 4y ago
I don't even like the concept of visibility--at least as implemented in C++, go, Rust, and a host of others. The whole notion of "getters and setters" just seems like so much pointless boilerplate. Explicitly requiring mutabi
461.
by sidlls 4y ago
It's a "problem" in the sense that it's additional syntax with critically important meaning to the understanding of the code. The descriptiveness of the labels may help, but it won't eliminate the additional cogniti
462.
by sidlls 4y ago
The language itself is whatever. As usual, though, it's the system built up around it. PHP is associated with shoddy craftsmanship and below-entry-level "webdev" shops shoving out slop, usually in the form of semi-customized
463.
by sidlls 4y ago
Well, the blog examples are quite trivial. Take a look at the standard hashmap implementation ( https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/std/collections/hash/map.rs.ht... ). Notice the lifetime annotations everywhere
464.
by sidlls 4y ago
This seems inaccurate. Engineering isn't a branch of mathematics: it relies on empirical results ("observations") and theory from physics (which also is empirical). Mathematics is not science. Engineering is science. Engineer
465.
by sidlls 4y ago
Likes: - The build/test tool is pretty good - Opinionated formatting/style is nice (even if I disagree with some choices, it removes a huge organizational bikeshedding problem) - Explicit error handling Dislikes: - The generics im
466.
by sidlls 4y ago
I was referring to the overhead of development time. Rust is more complex than C, at least, and even after having gained proficiency coding in Rust still takes more time than writing an equivalent C program. And "zero-cost" is mis
467.
by sidlls 4y ago
I'm fairly certain that if one wrote C (or C++) programs with the same safety targets that Rust has out-of-the-box the performance is close, if not (for practical purposes) identical. Of course, to do much useful (and performant) in Ru
468.
by sidlls 4y ago
Go’s problem is that in practice there are interfaces (fat pointers) everywhere. I’m about to start optimizing one of the services my team owns and my first step is going to be looking for all the bad performance issues that comes out of
469.
by sidlls 4y ago
I doubt that very much.
470.
by sidlls 4y ago
Why does every thread about functional programming and/or lisp have to have this not-so-subtle dig at developers who don't use them? Do you really think developers who prefer functional programming or lisp(s) are smarter on averag
471.
by sidlls 4y ago
Usually this is "solved" by creating unit tests to emulate what a compiler in a statically typed language would otherwise do. Which is (another) reason that dynamic languages shouldn't be the choice for anything but scripting
472.
by sidlls 4y ago
I certainly am not perfect to the degree that I make a single commit or a relatively small number of “structured commits” to any branch I’m working on. Neither is anybody else (regardless of whether they think they are). Anyone who tailors
473.
by sidlls 4y ago
Rebasing is a tool of last resort, when something has so fowled up the code that merging a large-scale refactor is even more time consuming. Rebasing takes longer and is actually more prone to error because of the clunky interface. There is
474.
by sidlls 4y ago
In Perl's case, it's both. Perl encourages it, and "perl practitioners" as a rule tend to revel in it (in my experience).
475.
by sidlls 4y ago
There is a group of developers where I work who would take a perfectly fine `New(…*Options)` constructor and write a whole suite of “option wrapper” “utilities” around it, rather than expose that function. It makes me tear up a little (not
476.
by sidlls 4y ago
No doubt: and that is generally the pattern I’ve seen. It’s really an eyesore.
477.
by sidlls 4y ago
> A little copying is better than a little dependency. Go takes this to an extreme, though. Generics helps, but the implementation is so limiting that it doesn't help much. > The general rule of thumb is that the length of a name
478.
by sidlls 4y ago
Poor analogies: none of what you describe is often the case out of deliberate action. Perl is often written deliberately in a way that is unreadable or maintainable. On purpose. Often because that’s what the language encourages.
479.
by sidlls 4y ago
I wrote Perl for a couple of years early on in my software career. It's mostly write-only. Oh it can be used to write readable and maintainable code, but often isn't.
480.
by sidlls 4y ago
I haven't touched zig, either, but I hope they don't go with structural typing. It leads to bloat: defining an interface explicitly to support unit testing, when stronger typing and appropriate use of fixtures and integration test

More ›