• 0 Posts
  • 76 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • Not sure if that is a serious question, but it’s because formatting doesn’t depend on the type of variables but going to the definition of a field obviously depends on the type that the field is in.

    formatting does depend on the type of variables. Go look at ktfmt’s codebase and come back after you’ve done so…

    Maybe my example was not clear enough for you - I guess it’s possible you’ve never experienced working intellisense, so you don’t understand the feature I’m describing.

    Lol, nice try with the insult there. I code in Kotlin, my intellisense works just fine. I just think you’re quite ignorant and have no clue what you’re actually talking about.

    Ctrl-click on bar. Where does it jump to?

    it gives you an option, just like if it was an interface. Did you actually try this out before commenting? Guessing not. And how often are you naming functions the exact same thing across two different classes without using an interface? And if you were using an interface intellisense would work the exact same way, giving you the option to jump to any of the implementations.

    I’m sorry, but you clearly haven’t thought this out, or you’re really quite ignorant as to how intellisense works in all languages (including Ruby, and including statically typed languages).


  • By using the AST? Do you really not know how languages work? I mean seriously, this is incredibly basic stuff. You don’t need to know the type to jump to the ast node location. Do you think that formatters for dynamic languages need to know the type in order to format them properly? Then why in the world would you need it to know where to jump to in a type definition!?!

    Edit: also in the case of Ruby, the entire thing runs on a VM which used to be YARV but I think might have changed recently. So there’s literally bytecode providing all the information needed to run it. I highly recommend reading a book about how the Ruby internals work since you seem to think you understand but it’s quite clear you don’t, or for some reason think “jump to” is this magical thing that requires types.







  • Maybe other Ruby code is better, but people always say Rails is the killer app of Ruby so…

    I’ve literally never heard anyone say that…

    That only works if you have static type annotations, which seems to be very rare in the Ruby world.

    no. it literally works for any ruby code in any project. you do not need static type annotations at all. I can tell you’ve literally never even tried this…

    Well, I agree you shouldn’t use Ruby for large projects like Gitlab. But why use it for anything?

    because it’s a fantastic scripting language with a runtime that is available on almost every platform on the planet by default (yes most linux distributions include it, compared to something like python which is hardly ever included and if it is it’s 2.x instead of 3.x). It’s also much more readable than bash, python, javascript, etc. so writing a readable (and runnable everywhere) script is dead simple. Writing CLIs with it is also dead simple, while I think Python has a few better libraries for this like Click, Ruby is much more portable than Python (this isn’t my opinion, this is experience from shipping both ruby and python clis for years).




  • You’re talking about rails. That’s like saying Kotlin is a terrible language because your only exposure to it is with something that decided to use Glassfish Webfly Swarm and Camel.

    type annotations

    You can literally follow code perfectly fine in an IDE like RubyMine. It actually works much better than Python because Ruby is incredibly consistent in its language design, while Python is an absolute mess (same with JS. Try opening a large Python or JS project in PyCharm or WebStorm).

    No clue what you’re talking about with grepping though. Use an IDE like I said and you can literally just “Find all usages” or “Jump to declaration”, etc.

    In any case, you shouldn’t be using any of these for large projects like gitlab, so it’s completely inconsequential. Saying something like “Java is terrible, have you ever used it for a CLI? It’s so slow it’s impossible to do anything!” is idiotic because of course it is. That’s not what it’s built for. Ruby is a scripting language. Use it for scripting. It kicks Python’s ass for many reasons, JS is terrible for scripting, and while you can use something like bash or rust, the situation is incredibly painful for both.

    None of this has absolutely anything to do with the language design. You’re talking about language design and equating it to being terrible and then saying it’s because you don’t use any sort of tools to actually make it work.






  • I wonder why anyone would downvote you. to break down what you said:

    The primary problem is using agile all the time instead of when it is actually intended to be used

    this applies to everything in life. zero reason to downvote this unless you’re a zealot who doesn’t understand nuance

    short term work that needs to be done quickly by a small team that are all on the same page already.

    the whole point of agile is to be short term, maybe your downvoter thinks that the team doesn’t need to be on the same page??? don’t know how that is in any way a good idea. it means you haven’t done a good job communicating…

    Some parts of it are still helpful as part of a blended process, like more collaboration with the customer and responding to change, but those can easily derail a project if not everyone is on the same page through scope creep or losing sight of long term goals.

    anyone that disagrees with this hasn’t actually gone through with Agile according to all the tenets. It sucks for anything more than the tiniest projects that don’t need long term maintainability. I’m guessing this is where someone disagrees, but I can’t fathom why. Maybe they’ve only worked at one place, they think it actually is working, yet haven’t been there long enough to see the downsides or something.




  • I’ve seen this exact article quoted several times with the “you’ve been wrong about this all along” and it’s like the people saying that don’t even bother to read. No it’s not saying that lift isn’t generated due to low pressure forces, like you’re claiming. It’s saying that it’s not a complete explanation. It’s missing some forces that make up the rest of the lift.

    No, that’s not how it works

    You can be forgiven for thinking that that’s not how it works 🙃

    Like it says, it’s the most popular theory with scientists, they’re just still missing a complete explanation. Lift from low pressure is still the most popular partial explanation.