Yet the world is full of code that was replaced with less work than it would take to fix a single bug on the broken original.
Can you point out a concrete example? Because you're commenting on a discussion on an essay that documents several notorious examples that demonstrate the opposite point.
It was supposed to be a better C without the bloat and madness of C++, right?
D was sold as a better C++, way back then when C++ was stuck with C++98. To be more clear, D promised to be C++ under active development. That was it's selling point.
In the meantime C++ received 2 or 3 major updates, and thus D lost any claim to relevance.
From the blog post, it sounds like the underlying motivation is not tied to technical aspects but control over the language. If I had invested any of my personal time onboarding onto D and migrated any of my projects to D, I would be concerned about the negative impact these political stunts have on the tech stack.
I understand. I have to admit I felt a little dirty after pasting that text.
(...) there’s really nothing here for any competent programmer, even a fresh graduate. It turns out they they update the software by sending the update by radio.
How they send the payload is hardly the hard part of applying a software update. The hard part is stuff that you need to do after you have the payload: ensure the payload is valid, have the infrastructure in place to roll it out without bricking the hardware, be able to roll back faulty changes if some problem occurs after rolling stuff out, etc.
I can tell you with absolute certainty that this stuff is challenging for the majority of competent programmers out there, and they have the luxury of falling back to telling users to reboot or reinstall the app.
Should be titled, “demotivating a programmer with a specific personality type.”
The author talks about developers who are underpaid, aren't recognized by their work, and aren't even supported adequately with decent gear. This doesn't read like a list of developer traits. This reads like glorifying exploitation and terrible work conditions.
A very large part of the problem is that the people who are knowledgeable are often the ones that bought into the whole lone wolf coder shtick.
I'd add that a large part of the problem is that we have people complaining about perceived problems without being able to present any kind of solution.
I feel like the takeaway here should be that the experience of contributing to the project was not great. That’s it.
I don't think this is a valid summary. I think the first-time contributor had a rather self-centered approach to the bugfix, and turned a run-of-the-mill bugfix in a huge drama-riddled personal attack on a FLOSS maintainer for no good reason.
Only in the OP's one-sided and vindictive account of the whole ordeal does the project maintainer have questionable behavior. The central theme of the one-sided account is also absurd, as if a kernel maintainer needs to wait around for first-timers to contribute a patch for them to "rob" it to have a commit to show for.
The whole soap opera is so regrettable, and the OP comes out not looking good at all.
Someone in the thread mentioned that to get the benefits of micro services in a monolith, you can use a linting rule to prevent dependencies across modules
I don't think that makes any sense. The main benefit of microservices is organizational, more specifically how a single team gets to own all aspects of developing, managing, and operating a service.
Lower in priority, there's enabling regional deployments and improved reliability.
How are linting rules even expected to pull that off?
Being against this specific proposal does not mean people are happy with the current state of things. Is it possible that this particular proposal is bad and does not address the issues? I mean, the first item of grievance is complaining about how StackOverflow curates content by removing duplicate questions and problems that cannot be reproduced, with vague complains that this is newbie-friendly. Is this a reasonable complaint? I don't think so.
Keep in mind that this is for « typical IEEE members », which I am pretty sure is not a great representative sample of programmers in general.
It's still way better than counting references in YouTube and twitter, and weirdly enough TIOBE's results are in line with this poll.
To be honest, to me this all sounds like sociopath behavior to throw politically-inconvenient people under the bus in desperate self-preservation, and hoping this would intimidate anyone falling out of line.
Everyone in that group should present their immediate resignation. Shameful.