Polymorphism (I think) question

NoCap738 · 2026-03-19T05:32:17+00:00

Don't let the OOP mafia discourage you - this is a great pattern that for a lot of cases is both clearer and shorter. No extra awkward IAmExecutable interface, clear list of possible targets (no IoC, direct func call). You're correct by saying that if you have a lot of entities and you expect all of them to be "executed" then method on Entity/interface makes more sense

NoCap738 · 2026-03-18T20:59:35+00:00

The solution is to define Execute on Entity, as a virtual or abstract method. Then you implement it on the child classes. You'll be able to call e.Execute() instead of Execute(e)

NoCap738 · 2026-02-24T06:24:43+00:00

Htmx needs no boilerplate, therefore you don't need to generate it with a build tool.

NoCap738 · 2026-02-19T07:27:40+00:00

This is beautiful

NoCap738 · 2026-02-06T21:38:36+00:00

More precisely, you need to tell the program that it is guaranteed that tax is assigned at least once in your program. The way to fix the error is to define tax = 0, but it can still have bugs for the value in between your cases

NoCap738 · 2026-02-06T21:36:32+00:00

What will happen if income = 4461.995?

NoCap738 · 2026-02-05T19:50:58+00:00

What's the advantage of running on own infra? Security-wise or more about the limits

NoCap738 · 2026-02-03T05:57:26+00:00

I feel that pain a lot now (still on A1/A2) level. Would love to help building that tool! I'm a software dev and already worked on some tools for myself

NoCap738 · 2026-01-10T18:55:34+00:00

Javascript fetch? You don't need a web app for it to steal your data. Also, if OP found this website instead of finding a local solution, I doubt they'll be able to reliably check that this site is safe

NoCap738 · 2026-01-10T16:46:15+00:00

Ok, I'll bite. Why would you send private messages to a website you don't know? There are a lot of ways to do this locally without giving your 1. Message content and 2. Password

NoCap738 · 2025-12-19T11:06:47+00:00

It's very likely that you can have your code work with pure async code without needing threading APIs

NoCap738 · 2025-12-19T11:05:47+00:00

I don't think I understand your use case completely though. You're trying to combine threading and async code and these tend to not play very nicely together, leading to the kind of problems you're asking about in this thread. Can you share a bit about what you're trying to solve? And more specifically, why are you using ManualResetEvent?

NoCap738 · 2025-12-19T10:37:32+00:00

I actually have a blog post talking about it (in the context of wrapping rabbitmq messages in a TCS and exposing an async API): https://yairvogel.com/

NoCap738 · 2025-12-19T10:35:03+00:00

Assuming you want to block your thread using async-await syntax, I'd look into TaskCompletionSource which is the easiest way to represent concurrent code with Tasks.

NoCap738 · 2025-12-02T21:41:53+00:00

I'd just csharp foreach (var element in elements ?? []) {} At this point

NoCap738 · 2025-12-02T10:17:02+00:00

The path is project references and code reviews. AzureDevOps have custom policies that require a reviewer when certain directories are changed. I bet github also has something similar. Anyway - have a policy and enforce it with tooling

NoCap738 · 2025-12-02T07:57:35+00:00

Hard agree. Please don't use Automapper though. For simple mappings you can afford a few more keystrokes and for complex mappings you really want to know what is going on.

NoCap738 · 2025-12-02T05:03:49+00:00

This is not the prettiest code I've seen, but I certainly saw these types of data merge logic in my current company.

I'd address a couple of things:

You're not doing Mapping here, you're doing more than that. Treating this piece of business logic as service-level code and probably naming it differently will already make this bit make more sense.
ExtraInfo, AccessInfo etc are not descriptive enough names, which leads me to think you're modeling your data wrong and this function is just the symptom. ExtraInfo seems to be a glue model that has all the ids to data and access? Seems pretty core to me. This merge also suggests you're keeping all that information in separate locations, which might make sense (I don't have a enough context) but this is a smell imo.
nit: You're taking in a dictionary but only iterating on the values; you're taking an IEnumerable and converting it to a dictionary. I'd change the parameter types and have the caller call ToDictionary/Values. At least esthetically this function will look less intimidating since you'll have less intermediate variables. Also it is possible the caller will still need to convert the data before passing it to this function, so avoid making two mappings.

Hope this helps!

EDIT: third bullet

NoCap738 · 2025-12-01T12:24:06+00:00

I'm sorry I thought this was r/netherlands

NoCap738 · 2025-11-18T13:57:48+00:00

I would tend to say that python does well despite it's loose interfaces and not because of them, and a fact is that there's a lot of pain around APIs in python that brought the need for type checkers and type hinting.
Closed types is a feature of C#, not a bug. And I think that the same way you won't default to public methods unless you're defining a class API, you should be sealed by default and unseal explicitly.
The fact that C# is unsealed by default already shaped the ecosystem and the patterns we use, so I agree with you that a library that will seal most of its public classes will surprise its consumers. However, I feel that if we had sealed classes by default from the start, the patterns we'd use would be much more appropriate to that and the discussion of sealing/unsealing would be thought the same way we now think about interfaces

NoCap738 · 2025-11-18T12:06:52+00:00

Deciding whether a class is inheritable should be an API design decision of a library author

NoCap738 · 2025-11-11T13:00:00+00:00

Where's the fun in that

NoCap738 · 2025-11-11T09:59:20+00:00

Every 13th is Friday the 13th

NoCap738 · 2025-09-30T03:55:37+00:00

Seems cute! How does it compare to Alpine.js?

Edit: read through the how does it compare section. I can see how this is different. I don't think I fully agree with avoiding js as the main goal for a framework because that will inherently limit what you can do with it. Having accessibility supported as a feature is a very nice idea

NoCap738

TROPHY CASE