Tom

Even if you decide to not release it for the public and keep it to yourself, can be a political issue. The mere existence of something can create a imbalance of capabilities, e.g. people with access to the software have advantages over people with no access to it, which can be political.

In this sense, politics is a weird lens to view such abilities/actions, rather than something like socioeconomics. Granted, government policy affects peoples’ wellbeing, which can definitely affect their political views, but making the jump to “everything is political” feels like a stretch?

Having used PHP and Java extensively in my career, it’s always entertaining to read what people think about these languages.

Based on some places I used to work, upper management seemed convinced that the “idea” stage was the hardest and most important part of any project, and that the easy part is planning, gathering requirements, building, testing, changing, and maintaining custom business applications for needlessly complex and ever changing requirements.

Absolutely.

I’ve seen so many projects hindered by bad decisions around performance. Big things like shoehorning yourself into an architecture, language, or particular tool, but even small things like assuming the naive approach is unacceptably slow. If you never actually measure anything though, your assumptions are just assumptions.

What? The GPL would have offered no more protection for this exact scenario than the LGPL (or any other license for that matter).

As a normal software dev, I wouldn’t want to work in the games industry at all. There’s plenty of interesting and well paying work in this field.

And then I tinker on the side. I don’t think it’s ever been easier to make your own games as a hobby. So many great tools and resources to learn from. PICO8 has been a blast, but going to learn something more capable soon - not sure if that’ll be Godot, Raylib, or LibGDX yet, but I’ll probably but I’ll probably try prototyping some stuff to figure it out.

Bill is a liability.

Project Panama is aimed at improving the integration with native code. Not sure when it will be “done”, but changes are coming.

Nice video about it here : https://youtu.be/cZLed1krEEQ

Tldw: US DOS version actually has 2 separate impossible jumps on a level that aren’t present on the European DOS or NES versions.

Wow, that looks really nice!

I use Lua for PICO-8 stuff and it works well enough, but certain parts are just needlessly clumsy to me.

Looks like TIC-80 supports wren. Might have to give that a try sometime!

Yep, absolutely.

In another project, I had some throwaway code, where I used a naive approach that was easy to understand/validate. I assumed I would need to replace it once we made sure it was right because it would be too slow.

Turns out it wasn’t a bottleneck at all. It was my first time using Java streams with relatively large volumes of data (~10k items) and it turned out they were damn fast in this case. I probably could have optimized it to be faster, but for their simplicity and speed, I ended up using them everywhere in that project.

I’ve got so many more stories about bad optimizations. I guess I’ll pick one of those.

There was an infamous (and critical) internal application somewhere I used to work. It took in a ton of data, putting it in the database, and then running a ton of updates to populate various fields and states. It was something like,

• Put all data in x table with batch y.
• Update rows in batch y with condition a, set as type a. (just using letters as placeholders for real states)
• Update rows in batch y that haven’t been updated and have condition b, set as type b.
• Update rows in batch y that haven’t been updated and have condition c, set as type c.
• Update rows in batch y that have condition b and c and condition d, set as type d.
• (Repeat many, many times)

It was an unreadable mess. Trying to debug it was awful. Business rules encoded as a chain of sql updates are incredibly hard to reason about. Like, how did this row end up with that data??

Me and a coworker eventually inherited the mess. Once we deciphered exactly what the rules were and realized they weren’t actually that complicated, we changed the architecture to:

• Pull data row by row (instead of immediately into a database)
• Hydrate the data into a model
• Set up and work with the model based on the business rules we painstakingly reverse engineered (i.e. this row is type b because conditions x,y,z)
• Insert models to database in batches

I don’t remember the exact performance impact, but it wasn’t markedly faster or slower than the previous “fast” SQL-based approach. We found and fixed numerous bugs, and when new issues came up, issues could be fixed in hours rather than days/weeks.

A few words of caution: Don’t assume that building things with a certain tech or architecture will absolutely be “too slow”. Always favor building things in a way that can be understood. Jumping to the wrong tool “because it’s fast” is a terrible idea.

Edit: fixed formatting on Sync

I think that’s a fair argument. PICO-8 definitely could be called a primitive IDE. I think it’s closer to being a primitive game engine with so much of its focus being on graphics and sound tooling.

While you can code simple things within PICO-8, I’ve found that as I’ve built bigger things, I work better in an outside editor, even if it only gets me smaller fonts, splitable windows, vim bindings, limited linting, and somewhat broken code completion.

This isn’t a criticism of PICO-8 as an environment. I think there are a lot of strengths in its simplicity, especially for beginner coders.

I tend to make a distinction between a customizable editor with some support for a language (like vim+plugins) vs a dedicated all-in-one tool that fully understands the language and environment (IDE). PICO-8 is hard to place on that spectrum given it’s an all-in-one tool, but switching to a modified editor gives you more features.

This is a very strange article to me.

Do some tasks run slower today than they did in the past? Sure. Are there some that run slower without a good reason? Sure.

But the whole article just kind of complains. It never acknowledges that many things are better than they used to be. It also just glosses over the complexities and tradeoffs people have to make in the real world.

Like this:

Windows 10 takes 30 minutes to update. What could it possibly be doing for that long? That much time is enough to fully format my SSD drive, download a fresh build and install it like 5 times in a row.

I don’t know what exactly is involved in Windows updates, but it’s likely 1) a lot of data unpacking, 2) a lot of file patching, and 3) done in a way that hopefully won’t bork your system if something goes wrong.

Sure, reinstalling is probably faster, but it’s also simpler. If your doctor told you, “The cancer is likely curable. Here’s the best regimen to get you there over the next year”, it would be insane to say, “A YEAR!? I COULD MAKE A WHOLE NEW HUMAN IN A YEAR!” But I feel like the article is doing exactly that, over and over.

I’m reluctant to call much “bloat”, because even if I don’t use something doesn’t mean it isn’t useful, to other people or future me.

I used to code in vim (plus all sorts of plugins), starting in college where IDEs weren’t particularly encouraged or necessary for small projects. I continued to use this setup professionally because it worked well enough and every IDE I tried for the main language I was using wasn’t great.

However, I eventually found IDEs that worked for the language(s) I needed and I don’t have any interest in going back to a minimalistic (vim or otherwise) setup again. It’s not that the IDE does things that can’t be done with vim generally, but having a tool that understands the code, environment, and provides useful tooling is invaluable to me. I find being able to do things with some automation (like renaming or refactoring) is so much safer, faster, and enjoyable than doing it by hand.

Features I look for/use most often:

• Go to (both definition and usages)
• Refactor tooling (renaming, inlining, extracting, etc).
• Good warnings, along with suggested solutions. Being able to apply solution is a plus.
• Framework integrations
• User-friendly debugger. Ability to pause, drill in, and interact with data is immensely helpful with the type of applications I work on.
• Configurable breakpoints.
• Build tool integrations. Doing it on the console is… fine… but being able to set up what I need easily in the IDE is preferable.

Features I don’t use or care so much about? Is there much left?

• My IDE can hook up to a database. I’ve tried it a few times, but it never seemed particularly useful for the apps I work on.
• git integration. I have a separate set of tools I normally work with. The ones in my IDE are fine, but I usually use others.
• Profiler. I use it on occasion, but only a few times a year probably.

I do code in non-IDE environments from time to time, but this is almost always because of a lack of tooling than anything else. (Like PICO-8 development)

Which they could have done a much better job with.

It was basically just hosted SVN if I remember right, and they never added git support when it became the de facto version control system.

I’m somewhat confused by your statements, so perhaps I don’t understand.

Function/objects that allow changing their behavior by passing different objects into them, based on some interface, is called dependency injection. Some subset of behavior is determined by this passed behavior. E.g. To keep a logger class from having to understand how to write logs, you could create a WriteTo interface and various implementations like WriteToDatabase, WriteToFile, WriteToStdout, WriteToNull.

When you create this example logger, you’ll need to make a choice of what object to pass when you write the code. e.g. new Logger(new WriteToDatabase(config)) But maybe you don’t want to make that decision yet – you want to let a config file decide which writer(s) to create. The pattern to pick between dependencies at runtime is called a factory. In this case, you might make a WriterFactory to pick the right writer, or perhaps a LoggerFactory to hide the creation of both Writer and Factory objects.

So, a factory is only really a facade to hide the runtime switching of how an object is created.

Also, the term dependency injection often gets confused with what you see in various Java / C# / and various frameworks in other languages – those usually use what’s called a “DI Container” or “IoC Container”. These manage and facilitate how dependency injection happens within the project, often with various annotations (e.g.@Autowired). These containers are powerful, but sometimes complicated.

However, you can absolutely still do DI without DI containers, and I think advocating for not using DI generally (and related patterns like factories) is rather misguided.

I’ve found pair programming to be fantastic, but only when used rarely in certain situations.

If you’ve got a good rapport with a teammate and a legacy project has landed in your lap neither of you understand, I’ve found pair programming to be the fastest way to figure out how it works. As you work together, you’ll both understand different parts of it better and be able to quickly figure out what’s going on. I guess this is probably less pair-programming and more like collaborative dissection of code though.

I’ve also used it to help onboard people on a project fairly quickly. This is more tricky and much less comfortable to do, so I do my best to stay in tune with what they need from me, and tends to be me coding for a bit and them following along and asking questions. Eventually, they want to start writing some code, and a day or so of switching back and forth is as far as I’ve usually taken that. I think it’s useful to break down barriers when working with (especially new) people, to make mistakes in front of them, and build good rapport.

I’ve not used it much beyond those situations, but I’d definitely use it in these ways again.

I’ve watched so much good code written professionally die because of the whims of leadership in the past.