Of course, I’m a user too, but I don’t think Linux’s UX is that bad. It may be bad in some areas, but it’s not bad across the board.

I also don’t think Linux is only for developers. It’s great for developers, but it’s also great for people with only basic needs of their computer, those that don’t need much more than a browser, an email client and maybe an office suite. The UX is totally adequate for them, as evidenced by ChromeOS.

I think where Linux lacks is mainly for the users in between, those who are not full developers or tinkerers, but do want to mess around and do so from a perspective of expectations of how things worked in the Windows world. And I won’t deny there’s a plethora of legitimate enterprise use cases for which there is no equivalent in Linux today. But those are not UX issues, those are mainly matters market support. Linux is not great there, maybe it never will be. Or if it does, it’ll take a long time.

First example that came to mind was actually Mac users who struggle with external monitors/projectors and things like screen sharing too. I agree they’re things that are so basic they should just work. Reality is often different even on other OSes.

Of course if you have a Windows home and everything works and then you try Linux and it struggles with a piece of equipment, it’s easy to blame Linux. You wouldn’t even be wrong. But you are oblivious to someone else’s experience who uses Linux exclusively and everything works for them, how many of those things wouldn’t work or work well with Windows.

Personally I’m a developer, so I care a lot about integrating parts of my development stack. A lot of those things don’t “just work” on Windows, or even Mac, so I’m happy to stick with Linux instead.

I agree with your examples and it’s certainly true there are plenty of rough edges on Linux. Then again, how many examples are there for things that should “just work” and do on Linux but don’t on Windows? There’s enough that make me not use Windows at all, because it has a subpar user experience. I even used a Macbook for a few years, mainly for work, and there were too many small things that annoyed me about it, so it too had a subpar user experience.

Seems it’s mostly a matter of perspective which issues are more important to you.

0° being “very cold” and 100° being “very hot” is intuitive.

As someone who’s not used to Fahrenheit I can tell you there’s nothing intuitive about it. How cold is “very cold” exactly? How hot is “very hot” exactly? Without clear references all the numbers in between are meaningless, which is exactly how I perceive any number in Fahrenfeit. Intuitive means that without knowing I should have an intuitive perception, but really there’s nothing to go on. I guess from your description 50°F should mean it’s comfortable? Does that mean I can go out in shorts and a t-shirt? It all seems guesswork.

You make a good point in that Docker promised to make dev environments reproducible so that everyone on the team would have the same environment. They even succeeded in that, but either intentionally or accidentally omitted reproducibility over time due to the introduction of non-locked dependencies.

As a junior with no clue how to write production code, is Clean Code going to provide with a decent framework I can quickly learn to start learning my craft, should I throw it out completely because parts are bad, or should I read both Clean Code and all its criticism before I write a single line?

I see what you’re getting at it, and I agree we shouldn’t increase the load for juniors upfront. But I think the point is mainly there are better resources for juniors to start with than Clean Code. So yeah, the best option is to throw it out completely and let juniors start elsewhere instead, otherwise they are starting with many bad parts they don’t yet realize are bad. That too would increase cognitive load because they would need to unlearn those lessons again.

This is the real reason we have linters.

I absolutely agree with you. If I can avoid NPM I will indeed do so. Sometimes that means using Deno, but sometimes it can be a valid reason to avoid using the language altogether. And sometimes we have to suck it up 🤷‍♂️

As much as people like to make fun of JS/TS, I think you’re right, especially compared to the languages you mentioned. It’s my second-favorite language after Rust.

I think I would put Swift above it as well, except I don’t really use it since it’s too domain-specific in practice.

If you just have one or two required fields, with the rest being optional, it can also be a good middle ground to just pass the required fields to new() and use methods like in your example for the optionals.

PS.: A common convention for these methods is to prefix them with with_, like with_max_depth(max_depth: usize) -> Self.

Nah, more senior devs often also advocate for the quick fix, for the simple reason that the economics of a “proper” fix simply don’t add up, especially when you don’t know how much value such a fix would bring anyway. If you’re always looking to create “proper” solutions in hopes of someone in the future thanking you for it, it most likely means your priorities aren’t where they should be and it’s very unlikely someone will thank you for it.

I even wrote a blog on this topic: https://arendjr.nl/blog/2023/04/mvp-the-most-valuable-programmer/

Sorry, I don’t understand. Do you mean there have to be 6 digits of Pi in there, or the sixth character must be π? I’m down either way.

Sure! The other day someone called it emergent architecture. I guess it goes by multiple names :)

Can’t it be both? :)

JSON patch is a dangerous thing to use over a network. It will allow you to change things inside array indices without knowing whether the same thing is still at that index by the time the server processes your request. That’s a recipe for race conditions.

For a little bit I thought this library might be a subtle joke, seeing the #define _SHITPRESS_H at the start. That combined with the compress() and decompress() not taking any arguments and not having a return value, I thought we were being played. Not to mention the library appears to be plain C rather than C++… surely the author should know the difference?

Then I saw how the interface actually works:

// interface for the library user, implement these in your program:
unsigned int SPR_in(); // Return next byte from input or value > 255 on EOF.
void SPR_out(unsigned char); // Output byte.

This seems extremely poorly thought out. Calling into global functions for input and output means that your library will be a pain to use in any program that has to (de)compress anything more than a single input.

Essentially, but it doesn’t roll off the tongue as nicely 😅

Smart pointers are really really nice, I do recommend getting used to them (and all other features from c++11 forward).

You’re recommending him to give up his sanity and/or life?

And conversely, something Go is very bad at. For example, os.Chmod silently not doing anything on Windows.

Agreed on all counts, except it being useless to think about :) It’s only useless if you dismiss philosophy as interesting altogether.

But that kinda misses the point, right? Like, all that means is that the observation may have created the particle, not that the observation created reality, because reality is not all particles.

I guess that depends on the point being made. You didn’t raise this argument, but I often see people arguing that the universe is deterministic and therefore we cannot have free will. But the quantum mechanical reality is probabilistic, which does leave room for things such as free will.

I can agree with your view to say observation doesn’t create reality, but then it does still affect it by collapsing the wave function. It’s a meaningful distinction to make in a discussion about consciousness, since it leaves open the possibility that our consciousness is not merely an emergent property of complex interaction that has an illusion of free will, but that it may actually be an agent of free will.

And yes, I fully recognise this enters into the philosophical realm and there is no science to support these claims. I’m merely arguing that science leaves open a path that enters that realm, and from there it is up to us to make sense of it.

There is the philosophical adage “I think therefore I am”, which I do adhere to. I know I am, so I’ll consider as flawed any reasoning that says I’m not. Maybe that just makes me a particularly stubborn scientific curiosity, but I like to think I’m more than that :)