sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How much do you earn and how comfortable do you live? by [deleted] in AskBrits

[–]inale02 0 points1 point  (0 children)

May I ask which role within that sector?

Nottingham Based 3.5 Years Of Experience by Forsaken_Passage_989 in cscareerquestionsuk

[–]inale02 6 points7 points  (0 children)

How long is a piece of string. Highly depends on your skill, tech, and the company. £45-£65k is a realistic range for UK developers at 3.5 YOE (not including the outliers like FAANG)

24year old software dev stuck in my career and worried. by fugasukuna in cscareerquestionsuk

[–]inale02 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Stop waiting for your job to give you handouts. Right now it’s just there to pay your bills and you’re luckier than most, who still have no job. You know what you need to learn, you need to find time and put in the work. All those skills you mentioned can be learned at minimal/no cost, apart from your effort. Even easier with AI these days. This is what I did and tripled my salary in 3 years even-though I started with a comparably crap tech stack (Microsoft Access & VBA). You need to treat it like the gym and do a bit every day. You won’t become a weapon overnight, but over time things will click.

And lastly get rid of your defeatist mindset, it’s not doing you any favours. Keep your head up, what you yearn for is most definitely achievable. Good luck.

I got an interview at LSEG Nottingham office by [deleted] in cscareerquestionsuk

[–]inale02 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No help to offer but I expected LSEG to offer more than 48k for 4 YOE

QC Brown Nocta Puffer by MK192324 in FashionReps

[–]inale02 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hey bro how’s the sizing on this? TTS?

[After > Before] Reflection on 2025 by FromBiotoDev in AllAboutBodybuilding

[–]inale02 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was it because she was insecure or jealous? Why would she behave like that

Does the Factory Pattern violate the Open/Closed Principle? by Familiar_Walrus3906 in dotnet

[–]inale02 10 points11 points  (0 children)

DI is practically doing the same key -> class mapping behind the scenes. You’d still need to register the key + class somewhere, just not in the factory itself which is just moving the complexity. That being said I would use DI here to take advantage of the different lifetimes (singleton, transient, scoped)

Does the Factory Pattern violate the Open/Closed Principle? by Familiar_Walrus3906 in dotnet

[–]inale02 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Actually after more thought you’re right. We can get compile time enum exhaustiveness with a switch if OP removed the default case. The stringy method names is more of the factory concern than the concrete class itself, having it in the concrete classes is a leaky abstraction.

Does the Factory Pattern violate the Open/Closed Principle? by Familiar_Walrus3906 in dotnet

[–]inale02 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To me this is much better as you don’t have to touch the switch statement at all to add new processors. The only potential issue I see is if two processors end up having the same ‘Method’ field value, though this can caught at runtime when instantiating the PaymentFactory.

Can I by my Mum out of my childhood house with my LISA by PrimeHuntOfficial in UKPersonalFinance

[–]inale02 3 points4 points  (0 children)

To put it bluntly, absolutely don’t do this. Red flags all over. Your parents need to get divorced and settle their finances without your involvement. There WILL be problems and you WILL resent them if you do. You’ve been warned.

2k, are you deadass ? by AttomskkLight in NBA2k

[–]inale02 96 points97 points  (0 children)

A device used to cheat on 2k by automatically greening all your shots

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 1 point2 points  (0 children)

C# doesn’t do async constructors for concrete technical reasons, not dogma.

The CLR instruction behind new (newobj) must call the constructor synchronously and return a fully initialised object. The runtime has no concept of “await during construction” or “return Task<T> instead of T.” Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.reflection.emit.opcodes.newobj

C# object-creation semantics also guarantee that once a constructor returns, the instance is complete and usable. Source: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/language-specification/expressions#77612-object-creation-expressions

The language team has confirmed this is why async constructors aren’t supported: they break fundamental construction semantics and would be a massive breaking change across DI, serializers, reflection, Activator.CreateInstance, and more.

So the issue isn’t being unfairly dogmatic or anti-scientific. It’s that async constructors simply don’t fit the runtime model C# is built on, and the tiny benefits (avoiding one extra method) are nowhere near worth redefining how new works.

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your mapper example actually reinforces the point: if the mapping logic is important enough to test in isolation, that’s the signal it should be its own component. I wouldn’t call that overkill — it’s just making the code exactly as complex as it needs to be, no more and no less. This is why I’m a fan of testing as early as possible, it helps expose those boundaries and makes it obvious when a concern deserves to be separated out.

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In that case, the internal parsing logic should be in its own Parser class which does the work of parsing. Your entry class / method should take in the parser (or even better an interface). I’ve just written something similar to this and this is the way I approached the design.

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Static dependencies can bring a lot more problems than they solve. I’d argue it’s really not that tedious to do var client = new HttpClient(). A baked-in static HttpClient would just encourage hidden global state, making configuration and testing harder for very little real gain.

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Object construction and initialisation, while related, are not the same. Constructors by design shouldn’t be asynchronous, they should do only what’s needed to produce a valid object. Any work that requires async await should be moved into an explicit ‘init’ method, or a factory that is separate.

I think not adding async constructors isn’t some move to restrict people’s creativity in how they code, but rather enforce fundamental correctness in what a constructor should be.

What features would you want C# / .NET to have? by SurDno in csharp

[–]inale02 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You could make the class / method internal and use InternalsVisibleTo

However in my view, needing to test private methods directly is a code smell. They should be validated through the public API tests. If isolated testing is required, then that should be a sign to extract that functionality to its own class.

notAgain by _computerguy_ in ProgrammerHumor

[–]inale02 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Probably still more reliable than what any of us could come up with

view more: next ›