• 992 Posts
  • 1.75K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 9th, 2023

help-circle






  • rglullisOPAtoProgramming@programming.devBaby unit tests
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Imagine if OSes in the 90s crashed as rarely as desktop OSes today. Imagine if desktop OSes today crashed as rarely as mobile OSes today. Imagine if mobile OSes crashed rarely enough that the average consumer never experienced it. Wouldn’t that be a better state of things overall?

    Depends. What is the cost to get there? Will that sacrifice openness? Will that sacrifice portability? Will that require ossified structures that will make development of new applications more difficult?

    Look, the article is talking from the perspective of someone who is developing web apps in Ruby. Performance is not a huge concern. Processes being crash-proof are not a concern. You know what is the concern? To be able to validate ideas and have something that bring customers willing to pay real money to solve their real problems.

    For his scenario, forcing to define everything up front is a hindrance, not a benefit. And having GP screaming at it like this for having this opinion is beyond ridiculous.


  • rglullisOPAtoProgramming@programming.devBaby unit tests
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t really want to be talking past each other. The point I am refuting is that even if type-safety can help reduce the amount of bugs shipped, this is not the only metric that matters to measure the value of the software being developed.

    bugs are really annoying

    And being late or never delivering out of fear of shipping buggy code is even worse.

    Some years ago, I worked on a crypto project that was financed via an ICO. This meant that whatever money the company was going to get was already in their hands, and their only job was to make sure they could prove they’ve done a best effort to deliver what was promised to investors.

    Because of these incentives, the engineers were more concerned about covering their asses regarding bugs than to actually get the software out in the hands of users. The implementation was in python, and to the team it was easier to justify spending time on getting 100% mypy coverage than to get things in hands of users to see the value of what we promised to deliver.

    In the end, by the time the team managed to deliver, the code was super well-tested, there were 0 mypy warnings and absolutely zero interest from other people in adopting our tool because other competitors have launched a whole year before them.









  • rglullisOPAtoProgramming@programming.devBaby unit tests
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    How many billion dollar companies were built on dynamically typed languages? Do you think that companies/bosses/investors care about the compiler warnings or whether you can deliver/iterate faster than the competition?

    nobody likes plumbing, but we all know it’s necessary.

    Is it, really? Are we all working on mission critical software? We are living in a world where people are launching usable applications with nothing but the prompt to an LLM, ffs, and you are there trying to convince yourself that pleasing the Hindley-Milner gods is fundamental requirement in order to deliver anything?

    Good engineering is about understanding design constraints and knowing where to choose in a myriad of trade-offs. It’s frankly weird to think that such an absolute, reductionist view like yours got so much support here.



















  • Right, but the problem with them is “bad usability”, which amounts to “friction”.

    Like I said in the original comment, I kinda believe that things will get so bad that we will eventually have to accept that the internet can only be used if we use these tools, and that “the market” starts focusing on building the tools to lower these barriers of entry, instead of having their profits coming from Surveillance Capitalism.


  • requiring a proof of identity or tracking users is a privacy disaster and I’m sure many people (especially here) would outright refuse to give IDs to companies.

    The Blockchain/web3/Cypherpunk crowd already developed solutions for that. ZK-proofs allow you to confirm one’s identity without having to reveal it to public and make it impossible to correlate with other proofs.

    Add other things like reputation-based systems based on Web-Of-Trust, and we can go a long way to get rid of bots, or at least make them as harmless as email spam is nowadays.


  • Not even the biggest tech companies have an answer sadly…

    They do have an answer: add friction. Add paywalls, require proof of identity, start using client-signed certificates which needs to be validated by a trusted party, etc.

    Their problem is that these answers affect their bottom line.

    I think (hope?) we actually get to the point where bots become so ubiquitous that the whole internet will become some type of Dark Forest and people will be forced to learn how to deal with technology properly.


  • Well, yes. But to me interesting part of the article is that I used to think that they did this to check if the venue was taking them seriously about general aspects of their rider, maybe to accommodate some of their eccentricities or to fuel their parties. I didn’t know that this was used as a canary test of the safety work, and I didn’t know that they were pushing for such large scale operations on their tours.