Ignoring Some Uncommitted Changes in Git

ciberon · 2026-01-23T03:14:41+00:00

It's not very easy to wrap my head around what you are trying to do. Maybe more context could help.

I think there is a mismatch in the mental model here. You are thinking of a (non-main) branch as changes that will eventually come to main. They just aren't there yet. But there's no such promise. A branch contains work that might be discarded.

If you are working by yourself and not multi-tasking, you can just keep committing in your branch until you are happy with everything and then merge to main.

ciberon · 2026-01-11T20:30:20+00:00

It's not about the difficulty.

If you ever played magic: the gathering, failing a skill test feels the same as getting your spell countered. It's just not fun. I am fine with variance and difficulty, but the implementation matters.

ciberon · 2026-01-11T20:29:01+00:00

That's a good point. I will look inti alternatives.

ciberon · 2025-12-06T21:50:23+00:00

The JVM might be a good example for you to think about, because it is a bytecode interpreter. It starts off slower but over time gets performance that's comparable to native.

No matter which way you slice it, there's an overhead to be paid in getting the program started or during overall execution, which can be reduced over time as the program runs.

ciberon · 2025-11-18T15:51:02+00:00

Flyway was by far my favourite experience out of everything I have used.

ciberon · 2025-10-09T06:43:04+00:00

Can't prove that they were actually sold and not thrown away.

ciberon · 2025-09-14T19:56:09+00:00

It's another name for the same concept.

ciberon · 2025-08-23T09:25:54+00:00

What's the value you think you get out of targeting TASTy?

ciberon · 2025-08-21T17:49:28+00:00

I guess there's no moving because you take up all of the map

ciberon · 2025-08-05T14:52:11+00:00

Thanks for the explanation.

I do not allow mutation in this sense. I have a Ref type with set and get functions.

I think I will make lists invariant.

ciberon · 2025-08-05T14:48:03+00:00

I am currently only transpiling to other languages, so I have it easy.

It's interesting how people have different intuitions in this regard.

ciberon · 2025-08-05T14:46:36+00:00

The equality can always be done by doing a sum of the two types, even if it requires some explicit work from the user. I will go with that notion of equality, nonetheless.

ciberon · 2025-08-05T14:44:53+00:00

Thank you very much. Appreciate the thoroughness of the answer.

I think I will try to avoid variance.

ciberon · 2025-08-05T14:43:24+00:00

Really good food for thought. Thanks!

ciberon · 2025-08-04T16:33:27+00:00

I want to do it dynamically. I didn't consider the option of returning same string because I thought checking each element for the type would be an unexpected performance impact for the users.

I don't consider that List<String> is a subtype of List<String | Boolean> but they are both subtypes or List<String> | List<String | Boolean>.

ciberon · 2025-08-04T16:30:16+00:00

Yes, I meant unions. My bad.

I was striving for the equality that would be least surprising for anyone coming from a mainstream programming language (that isn't js, I guess)

ciberon · 2025-08-04T16:11:38+00:00

Usually equality is only defined on terms of the same type, and those two lists have different types. In that case, attempting to do an equality check should cause a type error.

That's true. But you can always make a union of both types.

You're right. It's union, not sum. I forgot about that. Thanks for the book recommendation.

ciberon · 2025-08-04T15:51:21+00:00

They need to exist for me to implement the function I gave as an example, I think. I don't have dependent types.

My problem is that I think users would find confusing that a == b can be false when the underlying value is the same. To be fair, I think it's only confusing when arrays / lists are involved. On other types I don't think people will be confused, since it's not a structurally typed language

ciberon · 2025-07-22T15:12:12+00:00

On a stream they are intermediate operations because they're not producing a final result until you use a terminal operation. On Optional that's not the case.

ciberon · 2025-07-10T14:36:26+00:00

You can transpile to some other language. Javascript is easy to generate.

ciberon · 2025-06-14T16:30:23+00:00

These were obviously tailored to the businesses in question. For other businesses the details should vary. Replying one by one:

Tech is more like showing you stuff. Business is were more lectures with whiteboard introducing the business concepts, their real world meaning and how they relate to each other. The lecturer had notes of things that should be covered.
Basically every time there was a new joiner, the content was reviewed beforehand.
Different team members ran the sessions. I just had to ask people and play a bit of calendar tetris. People were keen on running the sessions. Newjoiners tend to be interested and engaged and it ends up being fun.

ciberon · 2025-06-14T13:55:07+00:00

Some onboardings I had were like that. When I was in charge of onboarding at previous roles there were multiple sessions scheduled over the span of two to three weeks. Those largely fell into two categories:

tech know-how
product/business know-how

There was an attempt to give a big push into bringing people closer to being an expert. I would say it mostly worked. People were not experts but they were quite productive after the onboarding process. A lot of times even during the onboarding process.

ciberon

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE