I much prefer for (auto map : hashMaps) ... over for(unordered_map<string, unordered_set<string>> map : hashMaps) though. Shame they didn’t name it “var” like in many other languages, auto just reminds me of cars.

You can disable this in Settings -> Data privacy -> Data for generative AI improvement.

We always hear how great Rust is, but I’d be curious to know where it isn’t.

• In any project that’s sufficiently advanced and written in any other language. You don’t simply do a rewrite of 100k+ LOC just because you want to use Rust.

• Somewhere where you’d rather use a scripting language like Python. I.e., rapid prototyping or gluing together some infra components.

• A situation where your team’s expertise is in some other language.

• A situation where a library/framework is native/only available for a certain language.

Few of these are strictly technical requirements. It’s obvious that you can use almost any language to do almost anything, including Rust, if that’s what you prefer. However, the context matters in the real world.

All this being said, I wish I had a chance to write Rust professionally. It’s a neat language.

Fascism is fascism, what can you say…

“Mr. Musk has provided us with another delicate moment, demonstrating the ancient Roman salute combined with a Hindu symbol. It appears that the talk about the AI-operated gas chambers was a bit of an awkward slip, and it’s best we do not further aggravate the division of our nation.”

I remember reading he also just laughed it off and said people are just paranoid and see what they want to see.

A pretty good tell-tale sign of a fascist is that they will never apologize or admit doing wrong. You have to appear strong at all times.

Well, bad code is bad code regardless of the paradigm. I’ve just had bad experiences rewriting some horrible OOP codebases and opted out to use as much functional style as C# allowed me to.

The main problem, as I see it, is that OOP encourages unnecessary abstractions and inheritance. These should be used as little as possible, because they typically increase complexity and make code harder to read and untangle. As an example, I’ve seen people define interfaces that don’t essentially define anything.

Another problem is that OOP encourages mutable member variables. It’s very annoying to try to understand code where class C inherits from class B that inherits from class C. Good luck debugging when the methods of C modify a variable declared in A in subtle ways.

As an idea OOP is very appealing. When I was younger, I would be thrilled to start designing a class hierarchy and interfaces when encountering a new programming challenge. Now I just try to think how to make things as simple and modular as possible.

Edit: of course bad functional code is also bad code. It’s also very annoying to try to understand code where functions pass badly named functions around as parameters and use 10 function compositions in a sequence.

You did the right thing. OOP was invented by people who were worried about their job security, to obstruct others from understanding their code.

In particular business logic that’s not obvious should be documented in comments.

// Typically 1 = 1, but on March accounting wants that 1 = 2. This function makes that mapping.

Just remember to mark all the things you’d like to make better but can’t be arsed to at the moment with numerous TODOs.

Hi colleague! So I found a comment in the code from 3 years ago by you saying you should “improve this”. Is it planned for the next sprint?

Few of the good ones I’ve spotted:

(complicated business logic in messy code) // TODO: check

(…) // TODO: think about better naming

(…) // TODO: This is obviously shit and needs to be changed.

(…) // TODO: THIS IS NOT USED ANYWHERE CONSIDER REMOVING ALTOGETHER (comment made 3 years ago)

Do I understand this correctly, that the first astronaut’s realization is that all data structures are graphs?

If yes, that doesn’t make much sense. How is an array a graph?

That freedom becomes misery on the instant you have to start maintain the code from some other free spirit, whose style is totally different from yours.

No, it’s actually a comment section for a Youtube video, and it is appropriate to voice an opinion related to it here.

The meme you’re parroting fits better when someone goes wildly off-topic, which is not what happened here.

Here is an Iron Law I have learned from two decades on Facebook: If you are 39 years old and married with two children, you do not get this ripped unless you are deeply unhappy.

Oh man, that hurt.

One can tell you’re a quality poster for putting a reference to a freaking programming meme. It is an overkill, but a quality overkill.

Sorry I can’t really contribute to your question, but would anyway like to take the opportunity to air my grievances: I hate Youtube shorts and TikToks with fierce passion. The format of short videos makes sense and is a good idea to some extent, but who the hell decided we’re not allowed to rewind our videos anymore? I want to hunt down that person, go to their house at night and tell them that they are not very good at their job so loud that their whole family can hear it.

I think Zuck does BJJ, not judo. Which would be even better for the cage fight.

Also, having hydraulic joints and titanium frame helps to absorb any damage Musk could inflict.

Nebula is not bad. I paid for it for a year, but had some issues with not enough content and the buggy UI on Firefox. If Youtube blocks adblockers, I’ll certainly go back to it.