If I designed the schema it is most certainly going to be structured. Unstructured databases are awful.

Sure, there are worse languages and environments to get stuck with. But I can avoid those jobs. And if I get hired as a SomeLang developer and they force me to work in Java or whatever, it’s time to dust off the resume.

I am aware of that, but Java is the most popular language that runs on the JVM. I don’t specifically dislike other JVM languages, though one of my issues is type erasure and that’s partially a limitation of the JVM.

Obviously OpenJDK is superior to dealing with Oracle’s bull. But even more superior (IMO) is simply not using Java. My life has been noticeably more pleasant since I started refusing to touch Java.

You consider calculating the hash of a few bytes to be heavy lifting?

just use await in an async function.

Sure, I’ll just put await and async everywhere. Oh wait, I can’t. A constructor can’t be async so now I need to restructure my code to use async factories instead of constructors. Wonderful…

async/await infecting all of my code, being unable to create a get myField() method that involves a hash calculation. It may be standard to do heavy lifting concurrently, but async hash functions are certainly not standard in any of the languages I’ve used (which is quite a few).

That seems like a good guess, I can see why async hashing could be useful. But it would be nice if there was an alternative API that was blocking so my code wouldn’t get infected with async/await all over the place…

So you’re arguing that “Object oriented” shouldn’t apply to languages that are oriented around objects?

Of course, but OOP is typically about putting methods on classes, inheritance of behaviour etc.

You’re referring to one subtype of OOP. That may be what most people mean when they say OOP, but that doesn’t make it correct. Object-oriented programming is programming with objects, which does not require inheritance or classes.

I’ve done a little bit of Python in the past, the biggest thing being an automation task that borderline became an app. I certainly can imagine using it for scripts, though I default to bash because that’s almost always available but TBH mostly because inertia. Beyond that my default is Go because inertia (and I love Go). I watched a video by the Primeagen (on YT) - in his view, Rust is better for text/data pipelines and CLI tools. Being very familiar with Go and not at all familiar with Rust, that’s an interesting take because honestly writing a CLI in Go is kind of meh.

so you have to catch all exceptions then do extra work to tell what the specific situation is

That’s horrifying. That’s a solid reason to avoid Python like the plague.

For references within a scope, you’re probably right. For references that cross scope boundaries (i.e. function parameters), they necessarily must consume memory (or a register). Passing a parameter to a function call consumes memory or a register by definition. If a function call is inlined, that means its instructions are copy-pasted to the call location so there’s no actual call in the compiled code.

Making good UX is fucking hard. I say UX because making it good is really about the user’s experience, not graphic design. An ugly front end can be good if it’s intuitive and easy to use. But a visually gorgeous front end will still be garbage if it’s clunky and confusing.

It’s really something you have to experience to fully understand. Ultimately it comes down to this: front ends have to deal with people, backends only have to deal with computers. So backends can be cleanly organized and well structured. Applying backend design principles to a front end will get you a CRUD interface - something that’s usable but no one really wants to use.

I used this tutorial for shaders: https://learnopengl.com/Lighting/Colors

This one also has useful stuff about how lighting works: http://www.opengl-tutorial.org/beginners-tutorials/tutorial-8-basic-shading/

These are both about OpenGL, but the theory is the same regardless of the environment.

“Flagged as spam”, “Publication Not Available”. I can’t see the article.

True, but if you read the article the point is clearly not about source code vs non-source configuration. There’s an implicit assumption that source code is something the developer will be modifying as time goes on, but the real point is, “Don’t make users merge changes.”

I think the author’s primary point is, “Merging changes sucks, don’t make your users do that,” with a corollary: if your program loads configuration from a directory that is only populated by the user, there’s nothing to merge and thus never any merge conflicts. Case in point: /etc/polkit-1/rules.d. I can add whatever rules files I want in there and they’re never going to conflict when I update. If PolKit makes breaking changes to the format, it will log errors somewhere and I can look at those errors, look at my rules, and figure out how to fix them. That’s a hell of a lot easier than merging conflicting changes to code/configuration.

Additionally, switch performs extra sanity checks that checkout doesn’t, for example switch would abort operation if it would lead to loss of local changes.

What checks? Under what situation does checkout lead to loss of changes? If I make changes and attempt to checkout a ref that would overwrite them, I get the following error:

error: Your local changes to the following files would be overwritten by checkout:
        some/file
Please commit your changes or stash them before you switch branches.
Aborting

To my knowledge it’s not possible to overwrite changes when switching branches/refs (git checkout <ref> without any other arguments or flags) so I guess what the author really means is, “If you use checkout incorrectly you can overwrite local changes.” As far as I can recall I’ve never accidentally git checkout <ref> <some/file> so I don’t see a reason to retrain my muscle memory. I do use git restore since it’s behavior is a lot more obvious than checkout/reset though sometimes I still use git checkout <ref> -- <some/file> because muscle memory.

• Scenario: I’m in the middle of writing a new feature.
• Boss, to me: “Shit broke. Go figure it out.”
• Me, thinking: I’m in the middle of doing some complex work. If I commit/stash and close the open files, it will take a day for me to remember WTF I was doing.
• Me: “Oh look, worktrees! I can leave my workspace intact with all the files open, pending changes, test results, terminal output, everything! And just create a new worktree to checkout the production version and debug! I’m saved!”

Also setting up a worktree is really easy. git worktree add ../hotfix prod-branch && cd ../hotfix and get working. Though in reality it’s cd ../hotfix && git checkout prod-branch because I’ve never needed more than one secondary worktree.