ubu7737

16 ms·

1. 91.▲
   by ubu7737 9y ago

   > code which is hard to test is almost always going to be hard to maintain This is a pointless equivalence to make. You're trying to suggest that code which is hard to test could be written differently, and better. This is not alway
2. 92.▲
   by ubu7737 9y ago

   I don't really agree. It's not like raising the minimum wage will train workers for tasks they can't already perform. The shortage of laborers in specialized task domains is endemic to our changing times, and I think framing
3. 93.▲
   by ubu7737 9y ago

   My experience is very similar to yours. I see my peers as too-easily crushed most of the time, and insist on my own way more than most.
4. 94.▲
   by ubu7737 10y ago

   I just watched Dept of Reclamation video on the designed failure of the Auburn Cofferdam. I get it now.
5. 95.▲
   by ubu7737 10y ago

   A failure of the emergency spillway could compromise the west side of the entire structure, no? What prevents that outcome?
6. 96.▲
   by ubu7737 10y ago

   To me it's sort of like people who use an index card when they read. They move it line-by-line down the page so their eyes have an easier time traversing the line of text. If this is the crutch that makes you a better programmer, who a
7. 97.▲
   by ubu7737 11y ago

   > XML's saving grace was that it came with good schemas out of the box JSON is inherently "schema-less". So this provides us with no grievance. > something that has, at best, extremely weak types You provide the reader