> In a decade or so Go the awkward things about Go will have multiplied significantly and it'll have many of the same problems Python currently has.
The stdlib packages are far better designed in Go than in Python. “The standard library is where packages go to die” is literally not a thing in Go, in fact quite the opposite.
> Early in the development process, when testing the incomplete application, I remembered that Subversion (the version control system after CVS, before Git) had a –dry-run option.
> I remembered how helpful that was, so I decided to add it to my command as well.
He mentions the reason he added it, and it's a compelling enough story to be true.
> And as a consequence, C# can pack the value types directly in the generic data structure, instead of holding references to heap-allocated objects.
> This is very important both for cache locality and for minimizing garbage collector pressure.
How is C# just not straight-up faster than Java then? Instead of both language punching around the same weight on benchmarks? Doesn't cache locality like, have a huge effect on performance?
> Amazon / Google / Microsoft offer managed versions of the database and make bank on it. Easily millions in revenue. Original creator / company doesn't get anything, and the hyperscaler isn't obliged to pay.
This isn't what is happening. A company called Garantia Data renamed themselves to Redis Labs and acquired the Redis trademark. They're not the original company, and they used a naming trick to present as if they are official (they are now, and nothing they did was illegal).
No. Scrollbars are besides the content, AI-generated content is the content. An article absolutely deserves to be called out if the author has the gall to AI-generate it and then share it on HN (or elsewhere).
I always do this. There's usually one field that you can put at the start that never changes. But the field at the end will keep changing as you add more fields to the SELECT list.
SELECT
a
,b
,c
,d
FROM
Customers
ORDER BY
b
,c DESC
Your argument is that writers do this because of "economics", but to the detriment of readers. I don't see how this extends only to HN readers. It applies to all readers in general.
This is awful. The alternative isn't "no name", it's a full and unambiguous name (even if it's a mouthful). If you can't come up with a good short name, stick with the long one.
> Spaces should be used to line up the code so that the root keywords all end on the same character boundary.
SELECT file_hash
FROM file_system
WHERE file_name = '.vimrc';
This style is annoying and I wish it gained less traction. It looks neat but it puts so much burden on the query writer, especially when you modify the query and all of the sudden you need to indent multiple lines just to make them all align. You know what's neat and still easy to modify/diff? Just indent a new line for each row.
SELECT
file_hash
FROM
file_system
WHERE
file_name = '.vimrc';
> When I first used Hugo I loved it. It was fast. It was simple. It just worked, as much as any software does, and it solved a real problem.
> It was done.
> But people kept working on it.
> I’m sure that it has been improved in countless ways. But along the way it has gotten bigger and more complicated, and has broken backwards compatibility repeatedly.
This is null trivia, a lot of it is not worth memorizing because it's not important. Personally I was surprised that NULL AND FALSE does not result in NULL, but who cares?
Too much layering. Code like this makes a huge song and dance around what is ultimately issuing an SQL query to the database and returning the results. The solution must always scale scale scale, never mind that simple problems should have simple solutions. A simple solution can always be refactored into a more complex solution, but not the other way round. It's always a safe bet to start with a simple solution.
I think anything other than deferring Close() and then calling Close() again explicitly is overengineering. Like anything that requires creating a cleanup function, capturing a named return value, requires contorting in unnatural ways to handle a very common scenario. Just... defer Close() the soonest you can (after checking for errors), then call Close() again at the end. Most sane providers of Close() should handle being called multiple times (I know os.File does, as well as sql.Tx ).
Wow, that's awful. So they abuse "forgot your password" as a login method, with the added obstacle of having to come up with a random password every time. And they don't see any problem with it. My hunch is that all these people are very non-technical users.
but if he was a scammer, "Adam" didn't have to follow up with a vitriol-filled email chain after abruptly hanging up. This felt personal, he genuinely felt wronged because the small startup calling him back for an interview was not begging to get him on because he was the "best Node/React developer in San Francisco by far" just from looking at his GitHub profile alone.
The stdlib packages are far better designed in Go than in Python. “The standard library is where packages go to die” is literally not a thing in Go, in fact quite the opposite.