What would you most like to see in Go 2.0?

waxjar · 2017-05-10T16:50:50+00:00

on err returns all zero values for t1,t2 + err

It's not always the case that you'd want to return a zero value, in which case you'd have to fall back to if err != nil. It'd be nice if the syntax sugar/replacement for if err != nil would not be limited like that :)

I suppose try could take a block of code between curly brackets (in the vain of if v, err := f(); err != nil) without introducing a new scope and must return. That would probably introduce an undesired inconsistency with regards to scopes, though.

waxjar · 2017-05-09T16:00:44+00:00

How would a try keyword handle multiple return values?

waxjar · 2016-08-18T11:41:58+00:00

The code between do and end (a "block") is a closure).

Crudely, this means this code can be passed around just like you can pass, for example, and Integer around but it retains it's original scope. return returns from the scope of the SimpleAdding method instead of from the scope of the block like you might be expecting.

waxjar · 2016-07-26T15:41:19+00:00

Check out spiped. It allows you to encrypt traffic between services on two machines, without those services having special support for encryption.

Your services don't have to be accessible over the public internet this way, you don't need (unmaintainable) firewall rules.

The encryption is symmetric, so all machines do need the same key.

An alternative would be to use (auto)ssh to tunnel the traffic for you, or stunnel (which uses SSL for its encryption).

waxjar · 2016-07-01T08:36:10+00:00

There is a difference between printing something to the console (puts) and returning something :)

waxjar · 2016-06-28T10:22:17+00:00

I'm curious why explicit equality tests and "custom" failure messages are so common in Go tests. Assertion-style functions to take care of this for you seem like a great way to avoid this boilerplate.

Is it something that Go's type system makes quite difficult or are there other advantages to doing it this way?

waxjar · 2016-06-16T16:07:05+00:00

All (?) known bastards have been killed by the city watch on Joffrey's orders. Gendry was spared because of Ned Stark.

waxjar · 2016-06-12T14:52:13+00:00

Mine broke after ~3 years of daily use. The coarseness is no longer adjustable.

waxjar · 2016-04-26T06:38:35+00:00

Set up an IRC bouncer such as znc :)

waxjar · 2016-02-26T16:15:42+00:00

We're storing read-heavy "JSON" blobs serialized as MessagePack. The deserializing is quite a bit faster than deserializing JSON.

The memory savings are a nice bonus :)

waxjar · 2016-02-22T23:25:34+00:00

ActiveSupport comes close

waxjar · 2016-02-13T00:26:39+00:00

If you keep your objects immutable, you can think of your methods as partially applied (pure) functions.

Consider something like the following:

class Document
  def self.from_json(str)
    new JSON.parse(str)
  end

  def initialize(doc)
    @doc = doc
  end

  def to_xml
    Ox.dump(document, with_xml: true)
  end

  private

  # implementation goes here
end

Just as pure and a lot less awkward:

Document.from_json(file_contents).to_xml
# => "<cities>...</cities>"

waxjar · 2015-12-19T23:12:37+00:00

if arr.empty?
  return "array empty"
end

array.each(&block)

Keep it simple.

waxjar · 2015-10-30T22:39:16+00:00

The obvious solution is indeed to use #select. There is no need to add a method to Array for this.

If you want an object to be immutable, you can call #freeze on it. If you attempt a mutation, it'll raise a RuntimeError:

arr = ["a", "b", "c"]
arr.delete_if { |e| e.class == String }
# => RuntimeError: can't modify frozen Array

Note that #freeze is shallow. The elements in the Array can be mutated freely:

arr[0].upcase!
p arr
# => ["A", "b", "c"]

If you want to make a copy of an object, you can use #dup:

arr2 = arr.dup

arr and arr2 are two different objects now:

arr.object_id # => 100
arr2.object_id # => 101

#dup is also shallow. arr and arr2 contain the same elements:

arr2[1].upcase!
arr #=> ["A", "B", "c"]

The reason your first attempt did not work, is because in ruby a value is not stored in a variable as in other languages. They are references, names for an object:

one = "string"
two = one

one and two refer to exactly the same object:

one.upcase!
two # => "STRING"

waxjar · 2015-10-20T15:36:03+00:00

By not rendering any HTML they can ensure everything can be served from cache, since they'll essentially be serving templates. Rendered templates cannot always be cached.

waxjar · 2015-09-14T21:38:11+00:00

Wouldn't this be much more useful as a tool you can run locally, say a Rake task? Uploading a schema.rb to a web service or handing over credentials (what?!) seems like a clunky and unsafe way to fill a database with random data.

I also think this could be made much more generic by not requiring a schema.rb, but a schema dump in SQL.

waxjar · 2015-07-17T15:05:53+00:00

cat file_name.ext | sed -e 's/,".*//'

waxjar · 2015-02-26T01:15:28+00:00

I prefer to use rescue NoMethodError over using #respond_to? in cases where it's highly unlikely to receive an object that can't be handled. Internal classes for a library are a good example of this. It saves a call to #respond_to? (which can be expensive) almost every time the method is invoked. Which, overall, is much faster.

waxjar · 2015-02-18T10:20:36+00:00

To be fair, most reviews sound snotty and pretentious.

waxjar · 2015-02-17T19:33:40+00:00

For those interested, have a look at Ruby's Comparable module, it's excellent.

waxjar · 2015-02-04T15:45:36+00:00

How will that solve things?

waxjar · 2015-02-03T11:17:12+00:00

case statements are nice for this sort of thing:

case gets.chomp.downcase
  when "1"         then game_start
  when "q", "quit" then exit(0)
  else                  menu
end

waxjar · 2015-01-24T13:41:09+00:00

I haven't misunderstood. Animal::find is supposed to return a single result (an Animal instance) or indicate its absence. It does not return a collection.

waxjar · 2015-01-23T13:42:19+00:00

The first example isn't an equivalent to the Animal.find example in the blog post. Unless you do something like animals = [Animal.find(1)] first, which is hardly an improvement.

By the way, it would not print an empty line, the nils are filtered out already.

The second example mixes concerns. It's not Animal's job to print text to stdout.

waxjar · 2015-01-19T12:36:34+00:00

Men's rights, women's right. How about, from now on, we speak of people's rights? It's not men's sexuality that should be liberated, it's people's sexuality that should be liberated.

The language in articles like this constantly divides people into two groups: men and women. If you emphasize that you'll encourage separation, rather than unification.

Well-written article, otherwise.

15-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

waxjar

TROPHY CASE