![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://programming.dev/pictrs/image/170721ad-9010-470f-a4a4-ead95f51f13b.png)
Did you read the comments above?
You can’t just ignore context and proclaim some universal truth, which just happens to be your opinion.
Did you read the comments above?
You can’t just ignore context and proclaim some universal truth, which just happens to be your opinion.
Nope.
If there’s a clear definition that there can be something, implicit and explicit omission are equivalent. And that’s exactly the case we’re talking about here.
None. The project was ultimately cancelled for unrelated reasons.
I had lengthy discussions about that because two companies conventions collided.
We talked literally hours about the benefits of build numbers, branch specific identifiers and so on.
I find it really weird that something as simple as the basic functionality of nextcloud seemingly can’t be implemented in a stable and lightweight manner.
Nextcloud always seems one update away from self destruction and it prepares for that by hoarding all the resources it can get. It never feels fast or responsive. I just want a way to share files between my machines.
There are other solutions, I know, but they’re all terrible in their own way.
That’s exactly not the thing, because nobody broke the contract, they simply interpret it differently in details.
Having a null reference is perfectly valid json, as long as it’s not explicitly prohibited. Null just says “nothing in here” and that’s exactly what an omission also communicates.
The difference is just whether you treat implicit and explicit non-existence differently. And neither interpretation is wrong per contract.
It can, but especially during serialization Java sometimes adds null references to null values.
That’s usually a mistake by the API designer and/or Java dev, but happens pretty often.
Well, yes, but the underlying issues still persist, so it’s not exactly a sustainable strategy.
I have to say, I’m getting more and more frustrated by the bad code I have to write due to bad business circumstances.
I want clean, readable code with proper documentation and at least a bit of internal consistency and not the shoehorned mess of hacks, todos and weird corner cases.
They re-invent everything for no reason. Every mundane device has been “re-invented” using big data, blockchain, VR, now AI and in a few years probably quantum-something.
The entire tech world fundamentally ran out of ideas. The usual pipeline is basic research > applied research > products, but since money only gets thrown at products, there’s nothing left to do research. So the tech bros have to re-iterate on the same concepts again and again.
Summary: nothing of value
uNuSeD rAm Is WaStEd RaM!!!
And the new Teams is not simply a replacement, no. It’s called “Teams (for work or school)” or something, while the old app is “Teams classic”. Both look the same and are the same sluggish mess. So why exactly did we do all that crap?
If you wouldn’t be such a reader and instead memorized things like God intended, you’d know, that this sentiment existed for at least 2000 years:
The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
Oh those poor fellows.
2.4 is the tipping point. Mark my words.
Any day now, it’s gonna be the year of the Linux handheld.
Again, that’s not what obfuscation means.
Also, what exactly is the difference between cat and journalctl? You can’t read a text file without a program either.
Of course, raw text files are more common, but what you’re drawing up here is a mixture of old man yells at cloud and tin foil hat territory.
So literally every program on your machine is obfuscated. Linux kernel? Obfuscated. Wayland? Obfuscated. And even VIM: obfuscated.
You’re creating problems where there are none.
Are you really sure, you’re using “obfuscation” right? Because that implies that someone intentionally makes something harder to read to hide something. That’s not the case here. Nothing is hidden, it’s all there, the formats are well defined and easy to read.
Again, did you actually read the comments?
Is SQL an API contract using JSON? I hardly think so.
Java does not distinguish between null and non-existence within an API contract. Neither does Python. JS is the weird one here for having two different identifiers.
Why are you so hellbent on proving something universal that doesn’t apply for the case specified above? Seriously, you’re the “well, ackshually” meme in person. You are unable or unwilling to distinguish between abstract and concrete. And that makes you pretty bad engineers.