Agree to disagree but I don’t think either of your words capture “the whole argument hinges on only one specific point. If this point is refuted then the whole argument is refuted. The rest of the points are only auxiliary but not crucial”
Also a great way to disagree collaboratively. If you can collaboratively find the crux of each others' arguments, you now know both know exactly what would change each others' minds, and you can find that information together and know what's correct.
“Load-bearing” doesn’t actually imply “only one specific point” (you can have several load-bearing walls). Anyway, you can use words like “critical”, “crucial” (as you used above), “essential”, “vital”, “key”.
Reasonable cyclomatic complexity is useful (at least) for testability. No metric is perfect and no metric should be a primary goal, but it has its use, and if you read e.g. a bit of leaked Windows you certainly will understand why it matters (and not because it has a particularly low cyclomatic complexity...)
Of course if you introduce new methods of dispatch and do not take them into account into a metric, you end up with something less... precise? useful? But given the primary intent and why and how the metric was created this seems a pretty trivial observation.
Now I agree it is also retarded to attempt to get only very short functions or extremely low cyclomatic complexity everywhere (even if you try to adapt it to count new kind of dispatch), because the only effect that produce is that it moves the complexity in another more abstract place we are less well equipped to manage.
"Short functions used to be hot. Uncle Bob [...]": well yes, Internet and sometimes group of people inspired ultimately by Internet and group effects can be pretty idiotic, but honestly Uncle Bob ideology was never considered serious in actual studies, and it is now even widely recognized mostly bullshit. It is just a kind of tech influencer if you want. Computer science and/or software engineering has more serious branches, where cyclomatic complexity can have its use.
I spend so much more time with generative IA thinking and iterating over design details (or even overall design) than before, when part was consumed by writing the implementation.
Bots are often terrible and/or don’t have all your requirements available on this subject, or even your are discovering them along the way and you don’t all the time want the recommendation of the machine.
From my experience not iterating enough and leaving high level decision to generative IA yield shit. Maybe this is not the case in all projects. But in my work, it would be absurd to complain about not having to know random API details anymore, unless when they actually matter.
The thing is that I’ve been programming for more than 30 years. Maybe I would have another opinion if I was still learning the things I was learning 20 years ago.
Weird take to claim "generally intelligent frontier" (whatever rhat means) and restrict availability based on "offensive" cyber security alone (how can this be handled at all compared to fixing software also remain to be seen) all while competitors but more importantly sw maintainers (eg curl) estimate that the capability in finding cybersecurity bugs is similar to what other modern models produce, and this has just significatively risen in the last months for everybody.
Tell your product owners that they should actually use the product they’re owning. And not just use it, but be a power user of that tool. Not a professional user, not a casual user; use the tool at least six hours a day.
I use YouTube 6+ hours a day and I have for probably 10 years, and I don’t even work there. (I have a few annoying personality limitations which make it so that I usually work better with YouTube on in the background, and NOT on autoplay, autoplay always chooses something I don’t want to see/hear; I know that because I use the tool a lot.)
I can tell you that it has steadily and continually gotten worse in that 10 year time. “I have to come up with stories or I won’t have a job” no you don’t, but even if you did, there are so many things YouTube needs more that enlarged thumbnails with visible compression artifacts.
What shocked me in the aughts was how bad Lotus Notes was. I was pretty sure that the average IBM executive wasn't using the average version of it.
Using the most commonly version of the product, on the commonly used hardware, at least 2 days a week should be a prerequisite for every product owner.
>Using the most commonly version of the product, on the commonly used hardware, at least 2 days a week should be a prerequisite for every product owner.
I am a firm believer that the software should also be developed on commonly used hardware.
Your average user isn't going to have the top-of-the-line MacBook pro, and your program isn't going to be the only thing running on it.
It may run fine on your beefed up monstrosity, and you'll not feel the need to care about performance (worse: you may justify laggy performance with "it runs fine on my machine"). And your users will pay the price for the bloat, which becomes an externality.
Same for websites. Yes, you are going to have a hundred tabs open while working on your web app, but guess what - so will your users.
Performance isn't really product's domain, as in — they would always be happier with things being more snappy; they have to rely on the developer's word as to what's reasonable to expect.
And the expectation becomes that the software should and can only run fine on whatever hardware the developer has, taking all the resources available, and any optimization beyond that is costly and unnecessary.
Giving the devs more modest hardware to develop with (limited traffic/cloud compute/CPU time/...) solves this problem preemptively by making the developers feel the discomfort resulting from the product being slow, and thus having the motivation to improve performance without the product demanding it.
The product, of course, should also have the same modest hardware — otherwise, they'll deprioritize performance improvements.
----
TL;DR: overpowered dev machines turn bloat into an externality.
Make devs use 5+-year-old commodity hardware again.
"The Microsoft Store" app is such a strong example of what happens when nobody cares about performance. It misses UI events most of the time, regardless of what hardware it's running on. Although, in this case, I don't think a Pentium 166MHz would help. The UI event processing is just fundamentally flawed.
<flame=ON>
Usually, but not always, it ignores scroll events while an animation is playing…and hovering over a tile in the list cause a pointless zoom-in animation (the result of which occludes parts of adjacent tiles). Sometimes, the animation won't start immediately, but will still play. To prevent the cannot-scroll-while-animating problem, the only safe place for the mouse pointer is over the scrollbar.
Clicking the (completely invisible) track of the scrollbar has random multi-second delays.
Most of the search filters are hidden by default…and can't be shown without waiting for a slow animation. You can click the show-filters widget over 30 times if you're in a hurry, and still the animation hasn't even drawn the first frame. That delay before it starts means that even if you try to wait, you might click one extra time, and then see both the show-filters animation and then the hide-filters animation…all while none of the rest of UI responds. …And then you might realise you want to refine your search terms…which will reset all filters and re-hide the filter options.
Once you find a tile you want to click, be prepared for another two animation delay: one, if the tile isn't already zoomed in, and another while the app mysteriously animates a slew of placeholders instead of just dumping the items information directly into view. It's slow like a 33.6 moder on a noisy phoneline, but now you finely have details about the item you clicked on maybe 7 to 40 seconds ago.
Now maybe you click a screenshot to enlarge, and decide it wasn't the app for you. You hit your mouse's 'back' button or click the app's strangely tiny (given how freaking huge most of the UI is) back button. Nothing happens. You try again, potentially numerous times…because the app ignores those inputs while a screenshot is enlarged. The app's so unresponsive, it at first doesn't occur to you that no amount of waiting or retrying will help. No, you have to click the little close widget on the opposite side of the window, or 'back' will never mean 'back' again.
You try to go back to your search results. The app eventually responds, but decided to discard that data for some reason and has to play more placeholder animations while reloading it and rediscovering your scroll position.
Then you go into another search result and decide the sidebar of other apps people viewed has some interesting items. These don't have animations on the tiles or any details, so you have to click each one of interest, waiting for more placeholders while imagining modems noises and being outpaced by a Colorado glacier that's crossing the road. And when you page back, the item you just came from does /more/ animations while reloading everything via IP Over Avian Carrier With Quality Of Service.
But when burrowing through the people-also-viewed sidebars, don't go too many layers deep, or when you return to your search results, it will have forgotten your scroll position and turned of your search filters. Ah, time for more UI-blocking animations.
But that's okay, right? Nobody ever made an app that responds in milliseconds to every user input, right? And we all know that doing long, blocking operations on the UI thread is right and holy, right? Even routines single-threaded apps never need to yield to other code blocks or process interrupts, …right?
<flame=OFF>
<meta-flame>
Yes, I have reported this to MS via Feedback Assistant. A few times. No, I don't know why they haven't appeared to do anything about this unshippable pile random bits that somehow slopped out of the Bit Bucket.
I have never experienced any of this. It’s not a great app, but I’ve never had any problems like you’re describing. Or .. somehow I don’t remember them, but that seems unlikely; I’m always willing to dogpile on a shitty application, but I have to experience the things.
It would be funny to compare suicide bombing to a dev implementing features their team is working on even if they don't sound good to that particular dev if it wasn't so sad and offensive.
I'm sorry, but this cop-out really pisses me off. It is far too common and frankly, unacceptable. It really is insulting that you'd expect others to accept this as a justification. It's a lazy dismissal and not even a proper excuse.
You're excuse for doing something shitty is... that someone else will? What does another person even have to do with it?! Seriously, let them have the blood on their hands. You can't even assume that someone else will! If you do it, you guarantee that it happens. Even if it is likely that someone else will, there's a big difference between a certainty. This is literally what creates enshitification.
Plus, the logic is pretty slippery. Certainly you're not going to commit crimes or acts of genocide! You were "just following orders"[0], right? Or parents often say to their children "if everyone jumped off a cliff, would you?" Certainly the line is drawn somewhere, but frankly, it is the same "excuse" given when that extreme shit happened, so no, I won't accept it.
You have autonomy[1], that makes you accountable. You aren't just some mindless automata. You may not be the root cause, but at best you enable it. You can't ignore that you play a role.
And consider the dual: if you don't make it better, who will?
I believe you have the power to make change, do you? Maybe not big, but hey, every big thing is composed of many smaller things, right? So the question is which big thing you want to contribute to.
I suspect for the same reason the comments like I responded to were made: liking my comment means accepting that you are a willing participant in creating shit/harm.
But I still stand, you aren't mindless automata and your actions matter.
RT threads can be prempted by higher prio RT, and IIRC some kernel threads run at the highest prio. Plus you can be prempted by SMI, an hypervisor, etc
I dont know if the Python in Excel architecture as changed but last time i saw it, it was insane and unusable for me (data sent to MS servers where a linux container executes python: you need both a subscription and that the data in question not be regulated)
I don't think the US is really first tier peer-allies with anyone, all friendly nations are on the spectrum of assets we utilize to cultural vassals that operate as reputationally independent extensions of the American empire.
I'm using OVH and the notion of it "just working" is all relative. It's tolerable, but certainly a bit buggy, and with far less services than aws and co. It is also cheap, but given the limitations I doubt they can increase the prices much...
Load-bearing feels like an unnecessary analogy.
reply