HolyHaddock

4 ms·

1.
by HolyHaddock 8y ago
It seems you keep your corpse related conversation mostly to email: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=mikekchar%20corpse&sort=byPopu... As someone who's quirked the odd sceptical eyebrow at base metabolic rate charts,
2.
by HolyHaddock 8y ago
Is it just pedantry? Even in the strongliest of practical strongly typed languages, two functions with the same signatures might fail to return on some inputs in the new version that it didn't in the old. That's a practical distin
3.
by HolyHaddock 8y ago
You may also want to look into the Saga pattern - I found https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDuwrtwYHu8 to be a handy high level overview for applying it to microservices. Although personally, I've never felt the need to
4.
by HolyHaddock 8y ago
Earnestly: Yes. But there may well be programming tasks or jobs that they are suited to, for which no understanding of boolean logic will make no difference on a day to day basis.
5.
by HolyHaddock 8y ago
What's the scrum manifesto?
6.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
Thank you for the clarification.
7.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
> a practically-attainable real-world solution. I can't be understanding this correctly. Please expand, I fear otherwise this is going to be at the back of my mind all day.
8.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
That's delightful, thank you for posting it!
9.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
Thank you both for the link and the google-fu tip.
10.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
Do you have a citation for that first claim? It fits my prejudices so neatly that I'd like to see the proof. I've tried to google a little for it with no success, so my apologies for any imposition.
11.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
> And frankly, if you can't point to bugs or performance issues, it's likely you don't need to be refactoring in the first place! I feel this is a lack of clarity around the word refactoring. Improving the code in a way th
12.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
At least one blogger preferred Googles assistant because she was ordering around an impersonal un-gendered corporation rather than what felt like an individual. That said, this does seem like a great opportunity for Ask to bring Jeeves back
13.
by HolyHaddock 9y ago
> language is designed for communication between humans. Unlike machines, humans do not always just want to exchange factual information about the world, and often use communication for additional purposes - jockeying for status, claimi
14.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
I'm afraid I'm missing the point too. Would you mind finding another way to make it? If the core point of the essay is to cut the YAGNI and just get something shipped, aren't gamejames like Ludum Dare a great way to do that?
15.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
So what is the distinction? I mean that as a genuine question - Vidarh's position seems to be that the death penalty is intentionally taking a life, and shouldn't have a different moral standing to murder. The response seems to be
16.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
Interesting! My team in HCOM is all Scala, but more generally here and in our upstreams it is still quite niche. Are you based in the UK? It would be interesting to compare notes. :)
17.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
Does anyone know what they mean by `Instead, use applicative transactions.`?
18.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
I've wondered about building an AI tournament for Avalon before, as my feel from playing and discussing it is that success in the game is strictly dominated by social strategy. It would be interesting to test out different bot strategi
19.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
Have you had any feedback from colleagues that have found that useful?
20.
by HolyHaddock 10y ago
> Yes, code review is an invaluable part of the git history. It explains why you made the decisions you made. This is interesting - even places I've worked that have cared about commit messages have been pretty happy with the entire
21.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
That's fine in theory, but it's not a universal heuristic, and even then, different smart well-intentioned people independently applying it won't necessarily come to the same result.
22.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
Having conversations about what the system being architected/designed/planned is going to do can be very useful. There are definitely better techniques than waiting until someone quibbles a field in a lines-and-boxes design sessio
23.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
The "See what it does" slideshow's totally broken for me - what does it actually do?
24.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
It's no longer correct that it uses MySQL - it's still not using BigTable, and in fact an RDBMS seems to have been implemented instead. That would appear to still support his rant?
25.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
This is a reasonable, common quibble when starting property based testing. A failing test should be straightforward to turn into a simple checked example - most good libraries have extensive simplification steps that try and boil failing ex
26.
by HolyHaddock 11y ago
A reasonable question. Perhaps it's not and there's no reason for anyone to take any time to say anything when someone's wrong. But if they do take that time and say something, then it's not unreasonable to consider the
27.
by HolyHaddock 12y ago
Not for pennies. People whoe aren't willing to exercise regularly to make use of hundred pound gym subscriptions are unlikely to finish a MOOC because of a few pennies.
28.
by HolyHaddock 12y ago
Jeff Vogel is great, and I've been playing his games for over half my life. But he's written similarly themed blog posts himself: http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-indie-bubble-is... Part of t
29.
by HolyHaddock 12y ago
This is worth understanding, and works out a lot better in practice than having to pass in ad-hoc collection builders as equally ignorable "out-params" or exceptions.
30.
by HolyHaddock 12y ago
The writers for Avatar were extremely lazy. However Unobtanium has been an engineering in-joke since the '50s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unobtainium

More ›