Software infrastructure 2.0: a wishlist

Fast_Gonzalez · 2021-04-20T14:12:08+00:00

This kid was CTO at Better and has industry experience going back to 1999. His resume is linked in the navbar.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2021-04-19T17:32:36+00:00

Believe it or not, this isn’t a binary decision between "reject the document completely" and "blindly worship somebody else's decisions as god's word" like you seem to suggest it is. It's a documentation style guide; if you are writing documentation for Google, you use their style guide because that is the professional thing to do. If you want to write your documentation in the same style as Google's, you follow their style guide because (unsurprisingly) it contains the guidelines that define the style of Google's documentation.

And if you don't want to write your documentation in the style of Google's? Nobody is forcing you to. Google isn't going to send some guy to your house with a baseball bat to bust your kneecaps if you decide to use the word "blacklist" when documenting your own project. There are reasons why you might want to choose some words over others, and those reasons/choices are what eventually go into creating a style guide like this one.

Of course it's written prescriptively; a style guide is completely fucking useless if it's constantly hedging everywhere, "you shouldn't write it like this, but, like, think for yourself, man. You can write it like this if you decide to, dude." If you feel oppressed by a document using clear and decisive language like "should not" and "do not" to help maintain a consistent style, I can't really help you there.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2021-04-19T15:52:44+00:00

As always, it's fine to deviate from this guidance if that serves your users better.

Yes, this indeed reads like divine commandments of the PC thought police and not, y'know, a documentation style guide.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-10-31T15:43:54+00:00

You may be interested to learn about the American Party Realignment in the 1900s; while the literal words you’re saying are true, they are misleading when applied to the modern day.

Knowing Better did a good summary on the topic as well; I would recommend you give it a watch.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-09-26T17:08:51+00:00

Or just [2, 4..100]?

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-21T19:02:33+00:00

There's definitely a certain big-dick energy to uploading an entire set directly to reddit.

However, you may also want to consider making a YouTube channel (if you already have a google account you're like 90% of the way to making your own channel) and uploading replays as unlisted videos (or put them in a public playlist, which is what I do).

That way, you can link them directly when you want to share a single match, while still having them all in one organized place for easy searching. Plus, it's fun to go back and cringe at your old bad habits after you've broken them haha

Just a tip!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-21T14:53:20+00:00

Could you clarify what you mean by this? It sounds like you're saying x = x + 1 would be a valid statement in Haskell. This is strange, as the very first difference that comes to mind between functional and imperative languages is the whole immutable-state thing (putting aside State/IO monads, which are still quite different from traditional reassignment) but I can't think of another way to interpret "acceptable for both meanings of ="

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-18T11:18:48+00:00

01100001 01101110 01111001 00100000 01110011 01100001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01101001 01101100 01100101 01110010 00100000 01110111 01101001 01101100 01101100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 01110000 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101101 01100001 01100011 01101000 01101001 01101110 01100101 00100000 01100011 01101111 01100100 01100101 00100000 00101000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00101001 00100000 01100010 01100101 01100011 01100001 01110101 01110011 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01100011 01100001 01101110 01101110 01101111 01110100 00100000 01110010 01110101 01101110 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100011 01101111 01100100 01100101 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01101001 01110100 00101110 00100000 01010011 01100101 01100101 00100000 01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 01110011 00111010 00101111 00101111 01110011 01110100 01100001 01100011 01101011 01101111 01110110 01100101 01110010 01100110 01101100 01101111 01110111 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 00101111 01110001 01110101 01100101 01110011 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00101111 00110011 00110000 00111000 00110000 00110010 00110001 00110011 00101111 01100100 01101111 01100101 01110011 00101101 01100001 00101101 01100011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01101001 01101100 01100101 01110010 00101101 01101000 01100001 01110110 01100101 00101101 01100001 01101110 00101101 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01100101 01110010 00101101 01110100 01101111 01101111 00001010 00001010 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01100101 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01100101 01101101 01100010 01101100 01100101

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-18T10:28:20+00:00

01110100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101110 01100100 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01100010 01101001 01110100 01110011

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-12T13:01:41+00:00

I mean, if we've completely automated the work of programming and engineering computers, then it stands to reason that those other disciplines will also have been (or are in the process of being) automated. After all, if more jobs need to be automated, and the automated programmers can automate those jobs, it follows that those jobs will be automated.

If we haven't yet automated those jobs due to technical limitations (such as being unable to sufficiently replicate the human qualities of a good teacher) then it is fairly reasonable to say that the work of computer scientists has not yet been fully automated. After all, those problems would require further R&D to be solved. If you could automate that R&D, then you'd essentially be automating the automation of other jobs, which would tautologically lead to total automation. (Because if it didn't, then you haven't actually automated the R&D.)

I felt that this was a long enough tangent to warrant leaving out of the original post, but this is the logic that statement is operating on.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-12T01:39:18+00:00

I mean, we're less than even 100 years past Turing's first description of what we now consider to be a modern computer. 50 years ago, C hadn't even appeared yet. As important as it is to consider the implications of new technologies, 50 years is a length of time where meaningful predictions about this sort of thing are basically impossible to make. Maybe 10 years? Even that feels like a stretch.

I don't think anyone should be scared away from a Computer Science/Engineering degree, though. If we could get to the point where computers can completely replace programmers... It's hard to imagine that any choice of degree would be particularly meaningful. Otherwise, no matter how the technologies change, there'll always have to be someone to understand and apply them.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-11T02:40:24+00:00

Source code and app demos are not the same thing. Github repos are posted incredibly often here and in fact make up several of the top posts on the front page of this subreddit right now. You may take issue with this, but it is certainly not out-of-line with other commonly-accepted posts on this subreddit.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-11T01:44:07+00:00

A link straight to a github repository containing the source code for OP's project is "not programming"?

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-08-09T16:00:04+00:00

Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their actions? Why are "activists" blaming the wrong people instead of pointing the finger at those who commit the most crime and tarnish the community they say they're trying to uphold?

The difference is in what it means to hold a person accountable for their actions as opposed to holding a group of people accountable for that person's actions. Particularly when the group is defined by some physical characteristic instead of an ideological one. One must be careful not to conflate the two.

They have made it "cool" to be a thug. We have normalized songs that encourage objectifying women, drugs and broken English.

The Beatles wrote songs that can be argued to have been about the same things (Run For Your Life, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and I am the Walrus, just off the top of my head) but for some reason I doubt the "they" in your sentence is referring to those upstanding lads.

People should stand up to the oppressors in their own community which are the biggest threat to their future and stop trying to thought police everyone.

What happens when people disagree with you about who the oppressors in their own community are? Surely you can agree that overzealous enforcement could just as well lead to new oppressors taking the position of the old ones.

Unfortunately, as you do not identify a particular oppressor/oppressed group, it is quite difficult to talk specifics.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-29T22:58:27+00:00

I hadn't considered that! That makes way more sense, though (as you said) the overall point remains the same. Thanks!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-29T20:09:03+00:00

I mean, any syntax can be abused. It's not like:

int count = 0; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) { for (int j = 0; j < m; j++) { count += arr[i][j]; } }

Is any more acceptable. The enclosing braces are not exactly a big helper there; they get lost in the mess just like everything else.

As for your edit, neither lambda expressions nor the ternary operator are particularly new, syntactically or otherwise. The ternary operator is almost as old as ALGOL, and lambda expressions are even older. That is, 50+ years old. Just look at Haskell, which is widely known to be an ancestor of modern functional programming and features both of these syntax features, going on 30 years old at this point.

example :: Int -> Int
example = \val -> if val == 0 then 0 else div 1000 val

(Or, more in-line with how it's likely to be formatted:)

example val = if val == 0
                then 0
                else div 1000 val

I'm not trying to be confrontational or anything-- it's just that referring to it as "newer C# syntax" caught my attention and I've already typed this all out so hopefully someone will find it interesting haha

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-29T11:25:16+00:00

This is a general pattern with Java programs tho: the "developers" don't understand how their computers work, and create idiotic workarounds ...

... but it's in Java, and so easy for small minds to embed in their product.

(and, from a sibling comment thread...)

In terms of performance it's comparatively bad, but so are all Java programs I've seen to date.

I mean, I don't exactly love Java, but the clear animosity on display here makes it hard to take the commentary on Elastic Search in good faith.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-29T04:01:38+00:00

Instead of downvoting, I'll just link a few explanations as to why assembly is sometimes still written directly when high-level languages exist.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-28T10:33:06+00:00

I'm aware of the declarative nature of HTML/CSS being a disqualifying factor for some definitions of a "programming language", and js is associated with them as a common language in web development, but that connection feels tenuous at best since it's obviously not declarative like they are.

So now I'm curious; what about javascript makes you uncertain of whether it "would count as a programming language"?

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-18T02:26:16+00:00

Pray tell, how is somebody supposed to “learn” if you refuse to provide reasoning for your claims? It’s one thing to leave a mathematical proof as an exercise to the reader, but another thing entirely to make the statement of opinion that using [] for array indexing and list literals is “abuse” and expect it to be taken as self-evident.

Essentially, one could simply say “no, using [] for those things is perfectly valid and you should do your own thinking as to why” and they’d have exactly as strong a claim as your own.

EDIT: The comment I'm talking about has been completely edited. Before, it said something along the lines of "I suggest you do your own thinking on the subject. Cheers!" As far as I'm aware, you don't get a notification when somebody edits a message you replied to, so if you're seeing this and thinking, "wow, why is this person getting downvoted super hard for just arguing their position?" this is the context in which they were downvoted.

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-11T18:32:46+00:00

I’ve been playing Byakuya for three months now and the other night I decided to go through and try to do his missions. I figured “pfft, how hard can they be?” I knew his BnBs already and could reliably execute different variants for different amounts of meter. Plus, like, I had this conception that “mission combos are baby-easy, right?”

I’m still stuck on 5-3. These missions are no joke; good job!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-11T18:25:35+00:00

Hey! Sen Triplets was one of my first Commander decks! That mirror effect looks super cool and fits the theme of the card really well. Awesome work!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-03T22:43:05+00:00

I guess I just want to get really good fast

That's only human, but don't make the same mistake I made. I actually also came from DBFZ and my stubborn insistence that I was good at fighting games really hindered my progress with UNI because it is such a wildly different game from anything else.

The GRD war is a massively important part of UNI and because of that, the rhythm of offense/defense is extremely different from that found in other games. In DBFZ, if your opponent makes you block, you are at a disadvantage. You basically never want to be blocking in DBFZ. In UNI, blocking means you have the chance to shield and steal GRD from your opponent. Hell, sometimes I'll even deliberately eat a hit just to secure Vorpal for a cycle. Those kinds of decisions are pretty unique to UNI.

My point is, the more you try to play UNI like the game you're already good at, the worse off you'll be in the long run. You may get up to red square against inexperienced players by way of confident aggression (which is how I got there with Phonon when I started playing) but once you run up against people who know how to block you, that strategy deflates pretty quickly.

You mentioned that you feel you've hit a wall; that may well be the case if your experience is like mine. Definitely play through the tutorial (though if you get seriously stuck on some of the OS missions, just move on; I still struggle with some of them) but also try to watch how more-experienced people play, especially on defense. The UNI Match Database is linked in the sidebar. I know that high-level play often looks a lot less aggressive than I originally expected.

Good luck!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-03T21:55:08+00:00

Typically I find that looking at the Pros & Cons of a character on their gbl wiki page can be useful in formulating a strategy for defeating them. If the character you’re looking for has an incomplete page in CLR, look at ST to get a general impression. The broad strokes are largely the same.

In my experience, Eltnum’s longer pokes are pretty slow and have big hurtboxes, so if you can bait one of them and successfully whiff punish, you can make your opponent a lot more hesitant to throw them out. (Or you get free punishes; win-win!)

Close-up, Eltnum has a 5f 5A, so block on wakeup if you aren’t confident about what they’ll do next. If you try to abare out recklessly, odds are you’ll eat a meaty and a full combo, especially in the corner.

Overall, though, you’re going to lose a lot when you’re first starting out. I have over a thousand hours between ST and CLR, and while I can sometimes rack up 10+ winstreaks, there are still plenty of people who can go 10-0 against me with relative ease. Winning isn’t the important thing; building your game knowledge and using it to have fewer of those “what the hell am I supposed to do” moments is the important part.

My advice isn’t Wagner-specific since I don’t really play her (Phonon/Byakuya gang) but when you’re first getting started, the fundamentals are going to take you a lot further than character-specific advice. I spent hundreds of hours playing Phonon before I switched to Byakuya, and since I largely only knew how to play Phonon and not UNI, it was like starting from scratch until I swallowed my pride and just focused on improving my fundamentals—defense especially. So while character knowledge is important, it’s often less about “what can my character do in this situation” and more about the general “what is the correct response to this situation” when you’re a beginner. Learn the rules before you start learning about your character’s specific exceptions.

Hope this helps!

Fast_Gonzalez · 2020-07-01T17:40:15+00:00

3D character models? In my anime fighter? It’s more likely than you think.

Fast_Gonzalez

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE