sorted by: new top controversial old
[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

After closer look I can say this is great idea. Initially I thought this messes with Lit’s lifecycle bringing React’s lifecycle drawbacks but seems like it’s not. I think at some point you should get in touch with Lit devs and see if it can become part of Lit lab or even Lit itself

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago

Is it better than React functional components in any way? I don’t see benefit over React functional components or even Lit’s class components

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Library built this way because it supposed to be flexible and provide ground for complex usecases. It can only be flexible if your API works with simple abstractions which you can then compose. It’s not driven by “I need this specific utility for this specific scenario”. That would be zoo you have in JS where you have 10 ways to iterate over array and 9 of them wrong for your scenario.

Java’s OO is great because they design library with SRP in mind making sure there is few but good ways to do things.

BufferedReader cannot accept file name because it makes arbitrary reader… well buffered. It’s not BufferedFileReader, even that would accept something like Path or File, not string, because File can be remote file, should Reader now know all possible local and remote protocols and path formats? What else it must do?

Having it designed the way it is, allows Java to have utilities for various scenarios. Your scenario covered by standard lib too. See Files.readAllLines which, surprise-surprise, built on top of BufferedReader.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Char count is poor complexity metric. Perl is better than Python with your logic as it is more condensed.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 18 points 3 weeks ago

Can anyone actually tell what exactly complicated in Java? Verbose, maybe it was at some point but I find it very straightforward and easy.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago

I don’t know german but it seems to be more logical to have one word for “health insurance card” since it describes one class of objects. Better than spelling 3 nouns where one partially describes what object is and other nouns act like clarification

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

That was my first thought, but is that much different for say Tesla. They get tax breaks and pay as low as they can. Don’t get me wrong I not protecting China’s way, I’m rather against both. But it would be interesting to see numbers from both sides

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 weeks ago

AFAIK major contributor into low Chinese EV prices are subsidies and tax breaks for manufacturers. I know they have significant tax breaks in US. It would be interesting to see how they compare. Because if they are mostly on par this is pure corporate greed stopping them. Especially in case of Tesla. They are not overpaying workers and don’t use luxury materials

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

Though in reality, management will push back any unorthodox approaches/solutions/approaches as risk and additional losses on R&D.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

‘’’ Note: When I say “top-level” I am talking about the URL that you see in the address bar. So if you load fun-games.example in your URL bar and it makes a request to your-bank.example then fun-games.example is the top-level site. ‘’’ Meaning explicit creds won’t be sent. Even if fun-games knows how to send explicit creds, it can’t because fun-games does not have access to creds which stored for your-bank. Say suppose your-bank creds stored in local store. Since current URL is fun-games it can only access local storage of fun-games, not your-bank.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 month ago

Thank you! I was always wondering why the heck this (mostly) useless and broken mechanism exists. I had hesitations about disabling it but had doubts about my understanding. Now I know I’m right

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

“Stateless” is not what “I” want, it is part of definition of REST.

Can do != what spec says you should do. You can also send clown version from the post but don’t be surprised people will find it… funny

Again, I’m not telling you are doing wrong. I’m telling you are mixing REST and RESTful web services

10
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by Lysergid@lemmy.ml to c/programming@beehaw.org

Hello my fellow, lemons? I have this problem in my current project I’m out of clue how to approach it. Maybe someone had similar experience and can give an advice.

Our requirements captured in JIRA. Throughout years we accumulated thousands of user stories. Say suppose following naive requirements team knows about:

  • Day 1: create home page
  • Day 20: create profile page
  • Day 50: add green footer to all pages
  • Day 100: create admin page Day 150: change footer color to blue

Now I’m doing refactoring (yes, I know, this is the actual problem) on day 400 and noticed that footer on profile page having green footer. Because requirements are just set of individual statements not consolidated with all history of system no one on the team knows why is that, is it bug or requirement did change on day 300 but we cant find it now.

When I worked in Waterfall we had BRD and FRD stating current actual desired state of system which was “reduced” from individual requirements which were coming in throughout project life. When in doubt devs can check FRD and not only know how system expected to behave but also which are other parts of the system that will be affected. How is it in Agile? To my understanding FRD is not a thing in Agile. Do I need to scan through hundreds of tickets and hope I didn’t miss anything every time i’m doing any non-trivial change to system?

416
view more: next ›

Lysergid

joined 1 year ago