That’s not creepy or weird, that’s horrifying.
That’s not creepy or weird, that’s horrifying.
Except “mass” is not useful by itself. It’s not a chair factory where more people equals faster delivery, just like 9 women won’t deliver a baby in a month. I wish companies understood this.
Ok, but the comment thread is about people preferring Bluesky to Mastodon, hence my confusion.
Isn’t the format literally just Twitter?
Are you complaining that older versions of Java don’t have the features of newer versions of Java…?
For me, as primarily a backend dev, the argument was that it’s a framework, unlike React, so you get an everything-in-one solution which is quite easy to setup and use.
Given that Google still hasn’t killed this one yet, it’s also a mature platform with plenty of articles online on how to use it.
IIRC the license was also better than React’s, at least last time I checked.
Not sure on what the landscape looks like today, but when I was making the choice, the internet didn’t seem to consider other solutions to be competitive with either React or Angular.
Over my dead body.
Not sure the son would see it the same way…
FYI there’s a fully playable unofficial port for Jak 1 and 2, and they’re working on the 3rd one: https://opengoal.dev/
I feel like I’d believe it if the headline was about John McAfee.
In my experience LLMs do absolutely terribly with writing unit tests.
IMO this perspective that we’re all just “reimplementing basic CRUD” applications is the reason why so many software projects fail.
Good abstractions are important for the code to be readable. An AbstractEventHandlerManager is probably not a good abstraction.
The original commenter said that their code was “generic with lot of interfaces and polymorphism” - it sounds like they chose abstractions which hindered maintainability and readability.
Is it possible that you just chose the wrong abstractions?
I do, and whether I have a good time depends on whether they have written their code well, of which the book’s suggestions are only one metric.
How do abstractions help with that? Can you tell, from the symptoms, which “level of abstraction” contains the bug? Or do you need to read through all six (or however many) “levels”, across multiple modules and functions, to find the error?
I usually start from the lowest abstraction, where the stack trace points me and don’t need to look at the rest, because my code is written well.
It’s only as incomprehensible as you make it.
If there are 6 subfunctions, that means there’s 6 levels of abstraction (assuming the method extraction was not done blindly), which further suggests that maybe they should actually be part of a different class (or classes). Why would you be interested in 6 levels of abstraction at once?
But we’re arguing hypotheticals here. Of course you can make the method implementations a complete mess, the book cannot guarantee that the person applying the principles used their brain, as well.
I never claimed it’s not important, I’m just saying it’s not relevant here, as there is no context to where this method was put in the code.
As I said, it might be top-level. You have to mutate state somewhere, because that’s what applications ultimately do. You just don’t want state mutations everywhere, because that makes bad code.
Clean code does not prevent writing bad code, it just makes it a bit easier to write good code.
OF COURSE you can follow the principles and still write bad code, because so much more goes into it, including skill.
A giant method with everything laid out, potentially mixing abstractions sounds like a nightmare to me. It leads to cognitive overload.
The most shameful part is that the union unequivocally supports RTO, they just want it to be done a bit more slowly.
Fuck neurodivergent people, and people who took the job from another city, like those in rhe article who need to commute 6 hours a day, right?