To me, the whole thing with “woke” being used as a derogatory term is the same as conservatist folk calling XR, Last Generation and other activists “eco-terrorists”.

How is POSIX a niche? 🤨

I don’t refuse to install dockerized software - but my system does. While for some people this might be unthinkable, not everyone runs Linux or some proprietary shit. There are many reasons to be unhappy with the trend.

Well, nope. For example, FreeBSD doesn’t support Docker – I can’t run dockerized software “irrespective of environment”. It has to be run on one of supported platforms, which I don’t use unfortunately.

Wtf, I’ve just written above: I’ve been doing software projects with other people for 2 decades. 🤦

I know what IT is, hence my claim that I don’t know what it has to do with naming variables. I know the answer: nothing. It’s a rhetorical figure. 🙄

I’ve been doing it for 2 decades, still don’t get it. So maybe you can enlighten me what IT has to do with naming stuff in code?

I don’t get this meme at all… What am I expected to see in this picture? Or how am I supposed to interpret it?

Haha, in the past IRC was the way to control puppets, now it seems Telegram is the way. 😅

Maybe that example was made terrible because the author couldn’t think of a good ways to show how great this can be. I’m obviously a fan of SOLID, and OCP is exactly why I don’t worry if I have only one class at the beginning. Because I know eventually requirements would change and I’d end up with more classes.

Some time ago I was asked by a less experienced coworker during a code review why I wrote a particularly complex piece of code instead just having a bunch of if statements. Eventually this piece got extended to do several other things, but because it was structured well, extending it was easy with minimum impact for the code-base. This is why design matters.

Above claims are based on nearly 2 decades of writing software, 3/4 of it in big companies with very complex requirements.

I wouldn’t say that inheritance is for avoiding code duplication. It should be used to express “is a” relationship. An example seen in one of my projects: a mixin with error-handling code for a REST service client used for more than one service has log messages tightly coupled to a particular service. That’s exactly because someone thought it was ok to reuse.

In my opinion, inheritance makes sense when you can follow Liskov’s principle. Otherwise you should be careful.

If you enjoyed it, I’ve collected a couple of others:

https://untalkative.one/reading:2019:good-stories

Reminds me this great story from a different era:

https://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/hack/recovery.html

I keep telling myself that in the ideal world, phones would be programmed in Forth.

That comment… Oh my, I want to joke and talk someone like you! Now!

I tried searching for research on it, but only found results claiming this didn’t work… Not actual scientific research, but better than “we think this should work, so now we’ll try selling it”

And “Y” stands for “Your Mom”. But it was a one night stand…

C Tesseract has this interstellar vibe and brings quotes like the following, but with a totally different meaning:

• “Years of [compilation error] messages”
• “People disn’t build this Tesseract”; “Not yet… But one day. Not you and me but people, people who’ve evolved beyond the four dimensions we know”
• “You’ve got to leave something behind”

I’m trying to convince a senior developer from the team I’m a member of, to stop using copilot. They have committed code that they didn’t understand (only tested to verify it does what it’s expected to do). I doubt it’d succeed…

They’ve got Paid BSOD, I’ve got FreeBSD, we’re not the same.

You were so close! The right solution is of course training an AI model that detects credentials and rejects commits that contain them!