[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

(...) you can see what’s going on with the rest of the company, too.

That's a huge security problem.

Edit for those who are down voting this post, please explain why you believe that granting anyone in the organization full access to all the projects used across all organizations does not represent a security problem.

[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -5 points 1 year ago

Even following the guidelines, modern C++ is just a huge pile of half-finished ideas.

You're making it pretty clear that you are completely oblivious to what C++ is, what are the differences between C++ versions, and what are the real world issues solved by each new version.

I would ask you to clarify your persona clams by providing a concrete example to back each of your statements, but I know you have none.

[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh, okay. I’ve never encountered a situation where I needed that bug fixed for the task but it shouldn’t be fixed as part of the task;

So you never stumbled upon bugs while doing work. That's ok, but others do. Those who stumble upon bugs see the value of being able to sort out local commits with little to no effort.

Also, some teams do care about building their work on atomic commits, because they understand the problems caused by mixing up unrelated work on the same PR, specially when auditing changes to track where a regression was introduced. You might feel it's ok to post a PR that does multiple things like bumping up a package version, linting unrelated code, fixing an issue, and post comments on an unrelated package, but others know those are four separate PRs and should be pushed as four separate PRs.

if they’re touching the same functionality like that I really don’t see the need for two PRs.

That's ok, not everyone works with QA teams. Once you grow over a scale where you have people whose job is to ensure a bug is fixed following specific end to end tests and detect where a regression was introduced, you'll understand the value of having tests that verify if a bug is fixed, and only afterwards proceed with changing the user-facing behavior. For those with free-for-all commits where "fixes bug" and "update" show up multiple times in their commit history, paying attention to how a commit history is put together is hardly a concern.

[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -5 points 2 years ago

Not sure exactly what you mean, could you elaborate or rephrase?

There is nothing to rephrase. I asked what problem do you think that undefined behavior poses. That's pretty cut-and-dry. Either you think undefined behavior poses a problem, and you can substantiate your concerns, or you don't and talking about undefined behavior being a concern is a mute point.

[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -5 points 2 years ago

My advice: use descriptive variable names.

The article is really not about naming conventions.

[-] lysdexic@programming.dev -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Specifically, do you worry that Microsoft is going to eventually do the Microsoft thing and horribly fuck it up for everyone?

I'm not sure you are aware, but Microsoft created TypeScript.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/typescript/announcing-typescript-1-0/

Without Microsoft, TypeScript would not exist.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

lysdexic

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF