• 3 Posts
  • 1.03K Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: September 24th, 2023

help-circle


  • Yeah I mean obviously the technical points here are correct (and I wish my colleagues would write more robust code with less Bash and regex all over the place), but I don’t know why he thinks you need an asshole manager to deliver that message.

    Over-engineered. Too many moving parts. Refactor.”

    That was it. No “nice work.” No “good attempt”. Just a hard stop.

    Uhm yeah, would writing “good attempt” have hurt? Obviously not. He could easily have been nice and still deliver the technical information.

    Good attempt, but I think this is too over-engineered with too many moving parts. For instance x y z would be simpler to maintain, and a b c isn’t robust to 1 2 3 for example.

    It doesn’t take much. Don’t be a dick.




  • FizzyOrangetoRustAdopting the FLS
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 days ago

    Technically they do via a footnote… but it’s a pretty confusing one at that!

    The FLS stood for the “Ferrocene Language Specification”. The minimal fork of Rust that Ferrous Systems qualifies and ships to their customers is called “Ferrocene”, hence the name. We’ll be dropping the expansion and just calling it the FLS within the Project.

    So now it stands for… nothing. Bizarre.




  • They’re being tactful. It’s clearly a reference to Waiting for Godot. They even said so.

    The name “Godot” was chosen in reference to Samuel Beckett’s play Waiting for Godot, as it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.







  • Honestly I think the complaints about the job market are overblown. If you are good then there will always be a job for you somewhere.

    If you’ve already tried programming and you enjoy it then it is a really great career. Crazy money (especially in the US) for low effort and low responsibility.

    Just be aware that CS is usually a lot more theoretical than most programming. You’ll be learning about things like Hoare logic and category theory. Tons of stuff you only really need in the real world if you’re doing formal verification or compiler design.

    Still, I kind of wish I did have that theoretical background now I am doing formal verification and compiler design! (I did a mechanical engineering degree.)

    Also you don’t need a CS degree to get a programming job. I did a survey of colleagues once to see what degree they had and while CS was the most common, fewer than half had one. Most had some kind of technical degree (maths, physics, etc.), but some had done humanities and one guy (who was very good!) didn’t have a degree at all.

    I wouldn’t worry about the market. Maybe take a look at the syllabus for places you might apply to, e.g. here’s the one for Cambridge. Also I guess an important question is what’s the alternative? What would you do otherwise?



  • FizzyOrangetoGolangTIL pprof is a thing
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    mainly because of rails magic though whenever I look at it. Convention over configuration hurts my brain some days.

    I agree. Ruby has waaaay too much magic which makes it impossible to follow (dynamic typing makes it even worse).

    And convention over configuration definitely has huge advantages in terms of consistency and terseness, but it is also way less discoverable because instead of a config file say “the stuff is in foo” you have to already know that everything in foo is automatically treated as stuff.

    I often wonder if it would be crazy to have both: you have a configuration file that says where things go, but the values must be set to constant well-known values. Sounds kind of crazy so I’ve never done it but you would get consistency and discoverability. I expect people would complain about the redundancy though.



  • I’ve definitely seen “this is more correct, but all the other code does it like this so can you change it?”

    I can’t say I entirely disagree with it either - usually the “more correct” is not “the existing code doesn’t work at all”, and keeping it consistent makes it easier to fix all of the code later, because you’re only fixing one style instead of two (or more).