Do they regrow their body or a new body made from the same parts?

Lol good luck on that promotion, you seem difficult to be around.

I wonder how your company handles performance reviews when you already know everything about all types of programming?

That variable is only created when the function is run, and it holds a constant value for the entirety of its lifetime.

It is literally constant from the perspective of the computer executing it. You’re the one adding an extra layer of expectation here.

Lol.

Pushing something onto an array isn’t changing the array? It’s not changing the reference to the array, but from a style standpoint it doesn’t make sense.

So you’re arguing for writing things as they seem, not the way that computers treat them?

You’re comment indicates the FE dev obsession with always using const stems from a misunderstanding of how computers work.

Maybe rethink this.

You are literally just describing the conceptual differences between functional programming and object oriented programming. It has nothing to do with front end vs backend, except for the fact that React has vastly popularized functional paradigms on the frontend.

If you come from a Java / Spring background, that will seem foreign, if you come from an express background it will feel natural.

Functional programming is extremely pleasant though. Its been described as what object oriented would look like if you actually followed all the SOLID principles. You should keep an open mind.

The equivalent in JavaScript / TypeScript would actually be function () {}, this is the syntax for named functions.

C# is the same as bash though.

Find someone running a service or a company for that.

Mo Money Mo Problems doesn’t refer to money or wealth in the abstract for the community as a whole, it’s about an individual making substantially more money than their local peers.

The situation presented by OP is one of a rising tide, that lifts all ships, where as the dynamic elicited by Biggie Smalls is fundamentally one of wealth inequality. If there was both enough wealth to go around, and wealth sharing mechanisms in place, it’s not clear that mo money would be mo problems.

But the court rulings / precedence wouldn’t care about that distinction, it just covers learning from copyrighted material in general.

What if you read a copyrighted engineering textbook, and then build something for profit with that knowledge?

Yeah, I started in the architecture industry and it’s wild how much every company pays Autodesk in licensing fees, every year, for extremely little improvement to Revit (their architecture software).

For a mid sized company (~500 people), I think we were paying them like a full staff software engineer’s salary in licensing fees every year… and there are dozens of them in every country, let alone major firms, independent shop, contractors etc.

Really felt like the industry would benefit from open source CAD software that was collectively developed, but it’s not quick or easy to build CAD software that works flawlessly at scale and no single firm has ever had enough up front capital to fund the development of something that could compete. Plus once you collaborate with other architecture and engineering and planning firma, you now need to exchange files and standards (or better yet work together real time), and now you need a solution that can work for everyone.

Exactly, Sci Fi writers almost never invent an entirely new technology for their books, they just look at current technology, think a bit about where it might head, think about how that could interact with broader societal forces, realize some flaw there-in, and write about it.

Technologists are doing basically the same thing, looking at current technology, thinking about where it might head and what might be useful and/or profitable, and then start trying to overcome current obstacles to develop and build it.

But one of them takes a single person a year or two to write a book, and the other has to start trying to do research and building things and testing them and breaking them and getting funding and overcoming the current obstacles etc. etc. If they start at the same time it will look like the technologist has just built what they were warned not to, when in reality they’ve been building it the whole time on a parallel path.

Edible, Non-Toxic, and Food form a Venn diagram.

The SOLID principles are just that principles, not rules.

As someone else said, you should always write your code to be maintainable first and foremost, and extra code is extra maintenance work, so should only really be done when necessary. Don’t write an abstract interface unless multiple things actually need to implement it, and don’t refactor common logic until you’ve repeated it ~3 times.

The DRY principle is probably the most overused one because engineers default to thinking that less code = less work and it’s a fun logic puzzle to figure out common logic and abstract it, but the reality is that many of these abstractions in reality create more coupling and make your code less readable. Dan Abramov (creator of React) has a really good presentation on it that’s worth watching in its entirety.

But I will say that sometimes these irritations are truly just language issues at the end of the day. Java was written in an era where the object oriented paradigm was king, whereas these days functional programming is often described as what OO programming looks like if you actually follow all the SOLID principles and Java still isn’t a first class functional language and probably never will be because it has to maintain backwards compatibility. This is partly why more modern Java compatible languages like Kotlin were created.

A language like C# on the other hand is more flexible since it’s designed to be cross paradigm and support first class functions and objects, and a language like JavaScript is so flexible that it has evolved and changed to suit whatever is needed of it.

Flexibility comes with a bit of a cost, but I think a lot of corporate engineers are over fearful of new things and change and don’t properly value the hidden costs of rigidity. To give it a structural engineering analogy: a rigid tree will snap in the wind, a flexible tree will bend.

Honestly I haven’t seen a single article written by someone who actually understands the mathematics involved so I call a huge amount of HORSeSHIT on your headline.

The US is a shit hole country.

Enjoy spiralling the drain together.

No, workers are not doing more for less compensation then they were in 1811. Overall things have improved, though obviously not ideally or universally.

For instance we all have relatively cheap well made clothing in a variety of different designs, primarily because of the automation machines that the Luddites smashed. The problem with Luddites is that they blindly attacked automation when their issue was with capitalism.

It’s strikingly mask-off utilitarian discourse from a tech CEO

No it’s not. It’s literally just basic engineering and logic.

This article is nothing but rage bait for luddites.

You have very few guns being snuggled into CA

Shut the fuck up. Literally almost all of the guns used to kill people here come from your fucking shit hole embarrassment of a country.

Don’t minimize our issues because you shit your pants every fucking day and pretend like it’s normal.

Gun ownership is a cancer on society, and America is becoming a fucking cancer on the world. Clean up your own fucking mess, and stop encouraging people to do the gun equivalent of literring because you’re a cowardice wreck. Use your guns to oppose your oppressive government, or shut the fuck up about guns being a necessity to oppose government oppression.

Hungary has kept Orban in check through just showing up in the streets, but Americans think they’re special snowflake children who need point and click murder machines they won’t use to enact change. It’s a fucking embarrassment.

Omg, a sustainable, repairable, and open source project costs the same as a closed source, non repairable, locked down option … Those are totally the same thing!

/S