MotoAsh

IMO, this kind of amazement mostly points to humans not really unserstanding how tiny the building blocks of reality are. Even the "massive" protein molecules your body uses with hundreds of thousands of atoms in them, tens of thousands of amino acid chains, can fit many on the tip of a sewing needle.

Titin has over 30,000 amino acids in it, and barely gets over 1um in length. That's barely wider than a sharp razor blade's edge, and they're orders of magnitude sharper than most knives.

The scale of the world is crazy, and we are already giants in it.

That won't protect shit. You need laws that actually protect and preserve privacy. Otherwise they'll just find some loophole. Like the NSA in the US. Not supposed to get searched without a warrant to the point where evidence gathered in such ways is supposed to be inadmissable in court... But your data isn't your property.

Even if it were your property, you'd have to add protections so that just because a company handles your data doesn't magically make it their data to sell for profit so it ends up spread far and wide and hackable in dozens of databases around the world.

If you don't protect PRIVACY and your right to control your own data, they'll just say they can force companies to use more hackable methodologies instead of an outright back door. They'll just force government ID to get on the web so even just your comms patterns without the content can be very telling. They could even simply force companies to forward the data some other way after the data legally becomes the company's data...

If you try to protect "from mass surveilance" without understanding the legal avenues in which your data is extracted... you'll just end up making room some other way while innoculating the tech illiterate public from how vulnerable their data still is.

Remember, nobody thought there was mass surveilance in the US until Snowden leaked it... Even then, the tech illiterate do not understand how it is EXACTLY a runaround of the fourth amendment.

Reminds me of the recent "debates" about not dehumanizing Nazis...

No, you fucking losers, Nazi's do not deserve respect!

If someone's aim is to FUCKING KILL YOU, the last thing I want to hear from self-rightous buffoons is, "but you might hurt their feelings!"

Claiming it's "bad" to call bad things bad because it biases others against that thing... is also fucking dumb tone policing. It's GOOD when bad things have "bad" associated with them!! It's GOOD to call the people that push for bad things also bad... because they ARE bad people.

I hear you. I just have to push back against anyone who is clearly assuming certain jobs simply deserve their insanely high paychecks. Virtually nobody should be making The Rock kind of money, and anyone operating on the assumption that it's not only totally fine but should be assumed for some jobs really gets my hackles up.

lol such a child. You probably get bullied with that hilariously shitty of an attitude. Pathetic.

SAD, dangerous, and expensive

Never the one who pushed, always ambivalent, but now the problem is potential number 6 is hesitant? Yea, that doesn't add up.

Sounds like the obvious answer is do not marry, yet you want us to justify it for you?

That's massive red flag #2: You cannot take accountability for your own actions and desires. If this is how you describe your decisions for a life-long bonding ritual, I hate to imagine how you handle less important decisions.

lol Me telling you why you're being made fun of outside of your shitty attitude isn't snark. Just further proving that lack of reading comprehension...

Unit tests have never been fun to me beyond the satisfaction of having good coverage. I mean good coverage that exercizes and asserts behavior, not just line/branch coverage!

Maaaybe the closest I've come to TDD was in JavaScript, not even TypeScript. Something about strict languages needing to be described a bit more explicitly seems to make code more tightly coupled in the general sense. Somehow, even beyond the literal code changes necessary. On one hand, that's great because it's harder to dig your own pits to fall in (see every reason TypeScript is even popular or 'necessary'), but on the other, code definitely ends up less... portable? On a version to version change level within the same product, even.

In order to "properly" do TDD, I feel like I should only have to minimally tweak the tests once they're defined, or else it's not really "driving" the development. It kinda' always ended up that I'd write the tests in tandem, which just doubled or worse the amount of work when an edge case or implementation detail popped up that wasn't already factored in. Then I'd have to address the functional issue and then go fix/add a test(s) for it. The process just ended up being slower than finishing the impl first, and THEN writing the actual tests, because the little tweaks along the way simply have less code to cascade in to.

It's really task-dependent on whether it pays off, IMO. If it's new code/functionality, it really takes well broken down issues so you're not writing multiple classes/features/concerns at once in order for TDD to feel remotely worth it. Which then has tradeoffs with extra task grooming time anyways. If it's existing code you have to enhance or fix a bug of? TDD can pay off in droves when the tests keep you from breaking other things or missing side effects, and makes it very clear when you're done with the task at hand to reduce the desire to refactor ugly code and whatnot. lol

IMO, how much trouble it is, is more about how testable the code is in general and whether you already have good test coverage, more than having tests defined first.

Not sure where writing tests fits on the problem solving spectrum. At least it helps as described for updates and bug fixes: you don't have to focus on or check on nearly as much stuff to get a task done well. Writing new stuff, it's always been more about how well structured and testable the design is than having the tests implemented first.

I suspect it ultimately comes down to the application's complexity over all. When tasks and code can stay simple, like with proper microservices arch or similar simplifying practices, I suspect it could be easy enough to TDD "properly" in any language and maybe even enjoy it. Sadly, I haven't had the pleasure of working on a clean project like that outside of pet projects where I'm too inconsistent on my work ethic to judge it. lol

Ohh executing examples and whatnot in the comments/docs is a good idea. I know a few frameworks/doc tools try that at least on a component level, but of course when you involve whole extra tools, it's sometimes a big learning curve cost even if the boilerplate/setup is trivial. That would be neat to have functional comment examples and formal unit tests at a language level.

I think I tend to agree on bad comments. There has definitely been a few memorable occasions where I've axed multiple paragraphs of comments simply because they were old and a touch nonsensical after years of updates.

Yea I cheated a bit by bringing in API documentation, but then in my defense a lot of that I also write, or at least write the formal comments that end up compiled in to those docs. lol It's also still a bit true when digging in to libraries to contribute, though. If the inline comments suck, most will probably not contribute unless it really legible code. lol

To me, there is almost always something worth documenting about a function, unless it's boilerplate or just obvious data handling, of course. Though even then, if it's at an app or library boundary, there is almost certainly some 'why' and limitations/etc to describe. After all, even basic CRUD at an API/app boundary will have multiple known modes of failure that have to be described somewhere.

Like I said. Reading comprehension. Lacking.

Snark just makes you sound 12.

Personally, I just got good at the cup swirl motion. Enough to get it rotating without the wave going over the top. Mostly just the lazier option but it is much less convenient to turn yourself when at a desk. lol