|
rotor posted:remediating fixing. the word you're looking for is fixing.
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 08:16 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 21:46 |
|
Mr Dog posted:fixing. no, it's definitely not "fixing," they're pretty emphatic on that point "remediation" to me has always had the flavor of striking a balance between repair and repair costs. so it's definitely not fixed, but it's better than it was, and that's apparently usuall good enough.
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 08:22 |
|
but my lovely plangs let me iterate through sprints in an agile manner or sprint through iterations I forget how it goes
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 09:32 |
|
ive never actually used rails. i made it until last week without installing ruby on any computer, and that was just to use some crappy tool i needed to use for a one off thing
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 09:38 |
|
im way more productive in haskell than i ever was in python, at the cost of being forced to spend marginally more time thinking through my problem before i start making GBS threads out code
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 09:41 |
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:nah. PHP arrays do what "arrays" in other languages do but even better, so there's no reason to rename them. if PHP implemented regular "arrays" they should have a different name, like ShittyArray or maybe even SplFixedArray fwiw lua arrays also do this, but they call them "tables" instead of "arrays", which tbh seems like a better name because it stops the whining then again, maybe arrays is the better name for exactly the same reason
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:09 |
|
Tiny Bug Child posted:what exactly is it that you're bitching about here? that they made a faster interpreter? that's exactly what they should be doing. Shaggar posted:if writing clear code makes ur code slower, something in ur language or tools is bad. it's a christmas miracle
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 17:26 |
|
tef posted:fwiw lua arrays also do this, but they call them "tables" instead of "arrays", which tbh seems like a better name because it stops the whining seems simpler to me to just call them maps the way php remembers insertion order interests me, though. does any other language do that? I think some browsers do but not others.
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 19:25 |
|
Yes: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/LinkedHashMap.html
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 19:44 |
|
Ugh not named array what a piece of loving garbage
|
# ? Dec 24, 2014 19:56 |
|
Hey Bloody, Shaggar, c# folks, etc. what's the best way to deal with event handler spaghetti? i'm doing a wpf project using the voice recognition api and i want to maintain all the delegation logic in the viewmodel and have each component (i.e. audioinput, audiooutput, recognizer) do its own task the way i want to do it is to have an audioinput class manage the input audio stream then when it captures data, feed it through the recognizer then send the output to my audiooutput class i'm using naudio to make audio io a little easier, but now when i get input data i have to do something with it in my WaveIn.DataAvailable event which seems like it encapsulates it in the audioinput class and doesn't let me control delegation in my viewmodel am i thinking about this the wrong way?
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 21:14 |
|
that probably should have gone in the terrible programmer hideout thread
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 21:16 |
|
re: rails is slow as poo poo here's a pointless framework comparison that shouldn't be expected to tell you much of anything besides rails being ridiculously, incredulously slow https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r9&hw=peak&test=fortune
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 21:45 |
|
Blinkz0rz posted:Hey Bloody, Shaggar, c# folks, etc. Rx (reactive extensions). Converts the events into effectively a stream. Then you can write .Selects etc over the stream to transform the raw input into whatever you want. Each processor can be encapsulated in an extension method.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 21:51 |
|
FamDav posted:re: rails is slow as poo poo alternative takeaway: even the slowest frameworks can handle thousands of times more requests than your lovely internal web app will get, so use whatever is quickest to develop for or easiest to maintain
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 22:04 |
|
suffix posted:alternative takeaway: even the slowest frameworks can handle thousands of times more requests than your lovely internal web app will get, so use whatever is quickest to develop for or easiest to maintain yup. we use rails pretty happily for our API and it serves up ~1.2m requests per minute no problem.
|
# ? Dec 26, 2014 23:24 |
|
there are other reasons to not use rails though. the biggest issue of the poor performance is that it is rather indicative of the compounded poor engineering going on, which shows up in other ways
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 16:35 |
|
Nil is why you shouldn't use Rails.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 19:49 |
|
I do enjoy the fact that Vala of all languages actually gets NULL handling right (i.e. you have to opt in to nullability for everything and explicitly test for it if something is nullable) java.util.Optional is a decent retrofit compromise for the best programming language though
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 20:47 |
|
Mr Dog posted:I do enjoy the fact that Vala of all languages actually gets NULL handling right (i.e. you have to opt in to nullability for everything and explicitly test for it if something is nullable) lmfao at this article title http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/java/java8-optional-2175753.html god java is stupid
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 20:51 |
|
i agree, there are a lot of stupid Java programmers out there due to Java's ill-considered use as a teaching language
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:05 |
|
his demonstration of "optional" is loving insane lmfao. how is that an acceptable retrofit
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:07 |
|
he gives much better examples implemented by other languages that use the JVM and then presents Optional and it's clear that it's just a stupid pile of poo poo for retards
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:08 |
|
Java code:
Java code:
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:10 |
|
brb im gonna go have eclipse generate some getters and setters for me, gotta encapsulate that data dontcha know
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:12 |
|
I don't really get the point of encapsulation.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:19 |
|
when you have an object with state and you only want its state to be changeable in certain ways from the outside, you mark certain poo poo as private. Then the only methods your object exposes are things that are actually ok to do. Mostly it's there to keep programmers from loving up. java is a horrible language though, it's basically object-oriented before people actually figured out what the useful parts of object-oriented were.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:26 |
|
right, that makes sense. I guess I don't get the "mark everything private and give it a getter and setter" thing that seems to be popular.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:54 |
|
vapid cutlery posted:
not to mention that code requires rewriting the existing classes to support using an Optional, so actually it should look more like this: Java code:
if you want to avoid nulls, just write your own: Java code:
return computer != null && computer.getSoundcard() != null && computer.getSoundcard().getUSB() != null ? computer.getSoundcard().getUSB().getVersion() : "UNKNOWN"; god that article makes me so angry
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:57 |
|
Bloody posted:right, that makes sense. I guess I don't get the "mark everything private and give it a getter and setter" thing that seems to be popular. that is a dumb thing done by bad programmers so it's a good sign if you don't get it, hth
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:58 |
|
future proofing against the hypothetical scenario where you replace or remove the private variable also the setter allows you to validate inputs because your type system doesn't automatically restrict you to sanity
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:58 |
|
Bloody posted:right, that makes sense. I guess I don't get the "mark everything private and give it a getter and setter" thing that seems to be popular. so when you inevitably have bugs caused by poo poo just mutating parts of an object using the getters and setters you can set breakpoints on the getters and setters, oblivious to the larger design problems in Hyderabad Hustler 2015
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:58 |
|
Bloody posted:right, that makes sense. I guess I don't get the "mark everything private and give it a getter and setter" thing that seems to be popular. it's not a big deal in c# as you can always retrofit properties, not sure why everyone does it there either. makes sense in javaland as you'd have to change variable access to a method
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:59 |
|
pseudorandom name posted:future proofing against the hypothetical scenario where you replace or remove the private variable what are you talking about.
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 21:59 |
|
why java programmers mark everything private and then add getters and setters
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:04 |
|
vapid cutlery posted:what are you talking about. like you have a Person class with a name String, and in the far future our names will be generated from ID numbers assigned by a computer but thanks to wrapping the name String behind a getName method call your code is well-prepared for this scenario!
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:06 |
|
http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/Chapter8/PropertiesMatter.aspx In C# it doesn't matter, just do it because it's a one liner but in Java it's a pain in the rear end
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:09 |
|
Max Facetime posted:like you have a Person class with a name String, and in the far future our names will be generated from ID numbers assigned by a computer but thanks to wrapping the name String behind a getName method call your code is well-prepared for this scenario! also what if somebody sets your name to U+034D COMBINING LEFT RIGHT ARROW BELOW U+FEFF BYTE ORDER MARK U+2603 SNOWMAN? what then???
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:12 |
|
in java you just mark a class with @Data though
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:14 |
|
|
# ? May 26, 2024 21:46 |
|
Max Facetime posted:like you have a Person class with a name String, and in the far future our names will be generated from ID numbers assigned by a computer but thanks to wrapping the name String behind a getName method call your code is well-prepared for this scenario! lmao
|
# ? Dec 27, 2014 22:17 |