youerbt

6 ms·

1.
by youerbt 2y ago
I believe you (other than tests being specifications, they are examples at best). But that doesn't change the fact that TDD looks more adopted in untyped languages, and that deserves an explanation. Mine is that a lot of potential erro
2.
by youerbt 2y ago
I'm a Haskell bro and I love testing. You misunderstand me, though. All I say is that maybe _some_ of those tests deliver value by just making sure that code even runs, which is otherwise covered by types.
3.
by youerbt 2y ago
> That also explains why TDD is more popular in say Ruby or Python vs. Java. I'd say that TDD being more popular in untyped languages speaks against TDD, as it hints that maybe some of its benefits are covered already by a type syst
4.
by youerbt 2y ago
But they chose a solution (if I understand correctly), where tenant ID is not in the signature of functions that use it, either.
5.
by youerbt 2y ago
> it violates various architectural principles, for example, from the point of view of our business logic, there's no such thing as "tenant ID" I'm not sure I understand how hiding this changes anything. Could you jus
6.
by youerbt 2y ago
Thanks. This does sound like a state machine, though, but the devil is probably in the details. Yes, here Haskell is probably a bad choice, and something where direct memory manipulation is bread and butter should do better. Which is comple
7.
by youerbt 2y ago
> So why hasn't it happened? 4. History. In those types of discussions, there are always "rational" arguments presented, but this one is missing. > One with lots of persistent mutable state. You mean like a database? I
8.
by youerbt 2y ago
One exception for me about >>=, is instead of this: thing <- getThing case thing of writing this: getThing >>= \case Not so much because it is less code, but fewer variables to name.
9.
by youerbt 2y ago
> It's almost never "we just don't have to care" when comparing to most other popular languages. Struggling with Haskell type system is not an experience of somebody who has developed an intuition about Haskell type s
10.
by youerbt 2y ago
I do AoC in SQL, I wish it was true. With Postgres, you have lots of regex/string manipulation functions that make it easy. For me, the biggest problem was memory. Recursive CTEs are meant to generate tables, so if you are doing some
11.
by youerbt 2y ago
Yes, I thought I just wanted to chill and listen to a song, but actually cutting-edge AI technology decided that I will have a better time listening to this car mechanic over-reacting to my favorite song, that he surely hears for the first
12.
by youerbt 2y ago
And the modern web search tools don't even try to be good at searching, but some engagement-bullshit-here-is-something-that-might-interest-you contraption. I love listening to bootlegs (recording of a concert that is not official, most
13.
by youerbt 2y ago
That makes no sense to me. If this coder has to access array by index twenty times a day, then he is going to remember it, eventually, no? If is it rare that he has to do it, then why memorize it? You really think there is more value in rem
14.
by youerbt 3y ago
This news is about conscription they do twice a year, regardless of the war.
15.
by youerbt 3y ago
> This isn't even hyperbole. Is there even some big scale mobilization going on in Russia right now? Or is this just the standard dig at Russia, because the topic is related to Russia?
16.
by youerbt 3y ago
To be fair if your config is just a structure with strings then you declare your types only once, too. Minus the codegen, but also minus the editor integration. I'm not hating on Pkl here, we deserve better in this space, so I'm h
17.
by youerbt 3y ago
Oh, I didn't comment on the Pkl, just on the status quo. My bad for not making that clear. "Enough" is the keyword here, time will tell I guess.
18.
by youerbt 3y ago
It's nice, but it comes at a cost. For example, every user of toml forever will have to put strings in quotes. Why? Because having other types creates ambiguity, that is resolved by this one simple trick. But if you don't quote th
19.
by youerbt 3y ago
My take on this is that there is not obvious reason not to, but it just so happens that typed configuration languages are not rich enough and not integrated enough to be that useful. Those languages that arrived with the JSON hype train lik
20.
by youerbt 3y ago
Yes, it's like the difference between adding a task in Jira vs in some todo.txt file. Slowness of the interface aside, you just have to do the whole ceremony for some simple don't forget/think of it later note.
21.
by youerbt 3y ago
> the alternative seems to be aggressively metricize and cut This is, for me, the funny part about it. If all those metrics, meetings, tickets and what have you, pushed mostly by the management btw, can't help them, then I'm af
22.
by youerbt 3y ago
Thanks, that might be just what I'm looking for!
23.
by youerbt 3y ago
We should ask them instead to modify the existing INI file. I bet most would do just fine.
24.
by youerbt 3y ago
I have seen this post on HN before and I wasn't received very well AFAIR. But I can't help agreeing with its main point: so much complexity to support a few basic data types that are not sufficient for anything complex anyway.
25.
by youerbt 3y ago
I feel like natural joins simplify writing queries, but not exactly reading them (especially if you are not familiar with the database). IMO a good compromise is the USING clause, which acts like a natural join, but columns have to be named
26.
by youerbt 3y ago
> Programming languages are tools to get shit done. I, on the other hand, find it baffling that some programmers, despite the fact that programmers generally make computers useful for other people, don't care how computers can be mo
27.
by youerbt 3y ago
While not many didn't touch it, many for sure didn't consider it for AoC: SQL. You can go for one query solution or use views/tables for multiple steps. It's an acquired taste for sure, but I kinda like it!
28.
by youerbt 3y ago
It can also get confusing, because in some languages there is no general notion of being a tuple or n-tuple if you wish. Even if they are casually all called tuples. For example in Haskell 2-tuple and 3-tuple are simply distinct types, as d
29.
by youerbt 3y ago
I'd call that function: polymorphic over tuple length.
30.
by youerbt 3y ago
Either business data and job are committed or none of them. Then as you write, either polling or listening to an even worker, can pick it up. Bonus stuff, from implementation perspective, is that if worker selects row FOR UPDATE (locking th

More ›