Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

gonadic io posted:

don't do anything with user input other than display it back to them. make them enter different parts in different fields so you don't have to split it up with anything more complicated than a .split('/')

like what validation are you doing anyway? with email addresses for example imo the most you should care about is that it has an "@" and then a "." after the @. even that is probably wrong honestly.



Ralith posted:

try to use it, and return an error if it doesn't work

yeah, i guess this makes sense. i couldn't really come up with any counterexamples that would really need a regex. i blame my brain damage on our lovely codebase

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

leper khan posted:

pretty sure email doesn't need a . after the @

yeah, but gently caress the people who try that

since google bought the .google tld, some employees are apparently starting to use name@google addresses. they deserve everything they get

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

JewKiller 3000 posted:

the (oca)ml module system is loving great and anyone who disagrees doesn't understand or appreciate its power

me i don't. but then i don't really have any idea as to what makes a good or bad module system

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
c# may be getting typeclasses as early as c# 8

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
it's perfectly reasonable in the 21st century to assume that an email matches .+@.+\.+

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Powaqoatse posted:

lol i dont think any emails match that

maybe? have i got my regex wrong? some letters, then an @, then letters, then . , then more letters?

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Soricidus posted:

a string your regex will reject: "dongs@butts.com"

a string your regex will accept: " @ ....."

oooooh whoops, lol. these things suck

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

NihilCredo posted:

also paket solves practically every problem that nuget has. always use it for anything non-trivial.

what makes paket better than nuget?

more generally, what makes one package manager better than another? what makes a good package manager better than a bad one?

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

NihilCredo posted:

for starters, if you add some packages to your project, then share that project with other people, when those people build the project they will always get the exact same package versions you used. this is not guaranteed with nuget

:eyepop:

Sapozhnik posted:

two features make a good package manager:

thanks for the responses. i don't really have to deal with this sort of thing often because we rarely bring in external libraries, and check the artifacts into source control (!)

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
well i'm glad someone else has written the network poo poo for me

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
fits in nicely with that idea that design patterns exist to fill in holes in the language itself

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

rt4 posted:

frankly learning how to use lisp languages has eliminated my patience for learning any other syntax

same, except javascript

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
he admitted he was wrong though. that's progress!

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
vue is knockoutjs 2016 w/o old browser support. it doesn't do anything new, but it looks like it does what it does well

which isn't saying that what it does is good. vue is all about two-way binding, which is a fundamental mistake

at least it provides a first-party flux-/redux-alike state management lib in the form of the awfully-named vuex, which is a step in the right direction at least

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Plank Walker posted:

out of all the things designed to be cross platform runtime environments, it's extremely lol and depressing that the industry has settled on google's chrome web browser as the standard

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Wheany posted:

html has the right idea.

you have a rectangle. you can draw poo poo on it if you want. you can attach a click listener to it if you feel like it.

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
shadow dom is just a way of isolating certain elements from their surrounding context (particularly for styling reasons and event handling)

virtual dom is a kind of double buffering applied in a way that only makes sense to web devs

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
i expect that zed shaw knows what phrases like "turing complete" mean, but in the original it really doesn't come across that way (about a third of the way down the page)

he was either going for a poorly-executed joke or an extremely subtle puppetmaster troll (although poe's law)

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
hot take: if you're new to programming, you should not be learning c

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Max Facetime posted:

yeah you definitely should not learn the single PL capable of accommodating every other PL

instead you should learn one of those other PLs

not as your first lang

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Max Facetime posted:

programming a micro controller to make a row of LEDs blink in C, without abstracting away the access patterns that actually do things, should be fun

certainly UB and memory corruption would be much less of issues with behavior right away observable and all memory yours and yours alone

oh, fair call (i'd forgotten about embedded/actual physical devices, lol). i was thinking more in terms of a 'make computer do things' language. while serving a valuable purpose about show how computers work at a lower level (pointers et al), i don't think it's a great language to start with computers

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

pseudorandom name posted:

UCS-2 and UCS-4/UTF-32 aren't fixed width either

wait, what?

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

pseudorandom name posted:

UTF-32 isn’t a fixed width encoding.

4 bytes is enough to represent every code point that has been and can be defined by unicode as it currently stands. what am i missing?

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
how do people actually learn c++ in tyool 2017, and how on earth can they have any confidence that the code they wrote is correct? it seems like such a minefield of weird minutiae that also has odd edge cases that can shoot your leg off

NihilCredo posted:

the f#/fable stack is pretty well positioned b/c of code reuse between frontend and backend

[screaming internally]

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
they are good and easy and often intuitive

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
i can't wait to ship a webass implementation of the entire .net runtime on every page load so that i don't have to write something that is js or compiles to js

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

theodop posted:

Having that distance between the UI and the LOB makes even the laziest devs have to think about things like separation of concerns and layering.

i see we've had different experiences

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
on the other hand, web app > native app since i don't have to install yet another loving dumb pointless app on my phone

smartphones were a mistake

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

tef posted:

(wrong-p 'skinner)

#f

(wrong-p 'kids) => #t

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

it's not quite as bad as it sounds, but it ain't good

https://opendylan.org/about/examples/hello_world.html

code:
Module: dylan-user

define library hello
  use io, import: { format-out };
end;

define module hello
  use format-out;
end;

Module: hello

format-out("Hello!\n");

looks a bit elixir-ish imo

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
reminder that it took powershell - a language designed around passing objects around - 3 versions to get half-decent syntax for creating new objects

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Shaggar posted:

powershell is forever doomed by the initial bad syntax decisions. It should have been csharp script but they decided to make it more bash-like which means its forever a better version of bash in which you write pseudo-csharp instead of just being csharp.

yeah, linqscript would have owned. a c# interpreter with some utility functions would get me to 90% of what i use powershell for

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

Glorgnole posted:

labview doesn't let you zoom because lots of its interpretation of what the blocks in the window are supposed to do comes down to the relative positions of the pixels in the icons and wires

jesus loving christ

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
i was hella pro-soap until i realised how many people handcraft their soap envelopes even in languages with excellent soap support (java, c#)

at least with rest you know that everyone creates their own bespoke clients so you have no expectations about reliable interop

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
lol if you microservice in any way

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
we're looking at grafting an event system into our dumpster fire codebase, initially (and probably primarily) to support notifying external parties of stuff happening via webhooks

our initial plan is to chuck events into a queue and let the webhook system pick them up from there. is a queue the wrong tool for this job?

if it makes a difference, it's 99.9% going to be implemented using CREATE TABLE Queue in our existing db

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

tef posted:

which db

shaggar-approved Microsoft (r) SQL Server (tm)



Shaggar posted:

no. don't use anything w/ queue in the name

Shaggar posted:

a queue in a db table is fine unless you don't care if the events get there in which case sticking in some in memory store to be handled best effort is ok.

ok, now i'm confused. what's the difference between a queue using a db table and a queue using dedicated software? some of the fundamental issues (e.g. unbounded queue lengths) would be the same between the two, no?

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters
thank you all for queuechat :sun:

we'll probably just implement a mediocre queue in the db and let ops sort it out

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

redleader
Aug 18, 2005

Engage according to operational parameters

MononcQc posted:

although scratch that, no software developer is never responsible for anything this is not real engineering

this is fine because most software doesn't actually matter

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply