aev_software

I play wind instruments so despite not strumming, I also use my hands to play. What seems to make a difference is that the movement is very different from typing on a keyboard. (I type blind with 10 fingers.) That difference suffices for my muscles and my brains to separate the activities and recognize music practice as a distraction and relaxation.

I let mine find example code of how some feature should be used. And it’s really sad how often they make something up out of thin air, and how little regret they show for wasting my time.

That’s where I am, too. I let mine find example code of how some feature should be used. And it’s really sad how often they make something up out of thin air, and how little regret they show for wasting my time.

A clear indication of bad requirements.

So what’s your opinion on languages like haskell and erlang, that infer static types?

Once upon a time I worked with a CMS that allowed an admin to delete the CMS itself and also any web server that ran it. Poof: gone. Fun times.

ELI5?

Author wrote a lot of words about data and state, but I’m not sure I understand the argument. Please explain like I’m 5?

You have my thanks. I asked my spouse to set up a recurring donation.

Sweet. I’m not sure in what country a dev lives to accept that low of a payment, for I couldn’t afford my rent off of that.

For real. Trying to second-guess what others are thinking or implying is a whole separate skillset. And some of us do that professionally…

Not sure whether that is a c# specific challenge. Does c# not know the concept of laziness?

Haskell famously is lazy, and so are Java message streams: memory objects simply don’t get created unless you use them.

I can understand that being a problem for trivial benchmarks, but I would assume a benchmarker to have that level of understanding, and otherwise catch up fairly quickly. I also had to learn about laziness when things just didn’t want to do anything at all. The compiler just optimized it all away because it wasn’t being used, as far as it could tell.

I guess it’s possible I’ve been doing OOP wrong for the past 30 years, knowing someone like you has experienced code bases that uphold that promise.

The main lie about these principles is that they would lead to less maintenance work.

But go ahead and change your database model. Add a field. Then add support for it to your program’s code base. Let’s see how many parts you need to change of your well-architected enterprise-grade software solution.

In my experience, when applying functional programming to a language like java, one winds up creating more interfaces and their necessary boilerplate - not less.

Yes, but that’s a really bad situation from a security perspective. ideally you want two separate accounts: the admin who can do everything, and the daily driver whose activities cannot harm the system.

OK but it also imports half the world’s code base in NPM packages alone.

Wait… you asked your AI to create a git branch instead of creating the git branch?

Why?

Try a rubber duck next time. Also, diagrams. Save a forest.

I love documentation if it’s written well and if it’s helpful.

I can’t say I find vim’s documentation meeting either of those criteria.

So I reach out to other sources who figured things out and regurgitate their experiences in ways that fit how my brain likes to consume them.

My app went from a single code base that handles a million different actions to a million code bases that each handle a single action, but they still all depend on each other and still are tightly coupled, but now they’re spread out across 50 disparate cloud services so maintenance effort only got worse.