1,499 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2021
    1. This isn't about writing boilerplate setter properties for each field in the model, but rather about writing methods that encapsulate the point of interaction with the database layer. View code can still inspect any field on the model and perform logic based on that, but it should not modify that data directly. We're ensuring that there is a layer at which we can enforce application-level integrity constraints that exist on top of the integrity constraints that the database provides for us.

      Addresses the issue raise on this tweet. We are not writing getters and setters out of obligation or convention.

    1. The salary for each profession varies from similar factors. What determines the salary of software developers? After reading this article, I concluded that the greatest role is played by the country in which the developer works. For example, there are countries where developer salaries are much lower, although skills are not inferior. Skills, background and many other points also affect. Enjoy reading!

    1. Rather than write new tooling we decided to take advantage of tooling we had in place for our unit tests. Our unit tests already used FactoryBot, a test data generation library, for building up test datasets for a variety of test scenarios. Plus, we had already built up a nice suite of helpers that we coud re-use. By using tools and libraries already a part of the backend technology’s ecosystem we were able to spend less time building additional tooling. We had less code to maintain because of this and more time to work on solving our customer’s pain points.
    2. This particular project team came in with a lot of experience using testing tools like RSpec and Capybara. This included integrating with additional tools like Selenium WebDriver, Chrome and Chromedriver, data generation libraries like FactoryBot, and task runners like Rake. We had less experience doing end-to-end testing with Protractor even though it too uses Selenium WebDriver (a tool we’re very comfortable with).
    1. Or if you're looking for a core extension that adds this to the Array class, I'd recommend the facets gem (require 'facets/array/average'). Then you can just do array.average. And, from looking at the source, it turns out they do the exact same thing as the instance_eval approach above. The only difference is that it's implemented as a method—which of course already has self pointing to itself—instead of a block): def average; return nil if empty?; reduce(:+) / length.to_f; end Main advantage of this is that it's even more concise/readable and it handles the empty? case.
    1. Users who have installed it decided to trust me, and I'm not comfortable transferring that trust to someone else on their behalf. However, if you'd like to fork it, feel free.

      Interesting decision... Seems like the project could have been handed off to new maintainers instead of just a dead-end abandoned project and little chance of anyone using it for new projects now.

      Sure you can fork it, but without a clear indication of which of the many forks in the network graph to trust, I doubt few will take the (massively) extra time to evaluate all options and choose an existing fork as a "leader" (or create their own fork) to go with continuing maintenance...

  2. May 2021
    1. that involves looking up where to find Guix's source code, `git clone`ing it, finding the Guix revision I'm currently on with `guix describe` so I can check out the same one for consistency's sake, `make`ing it, `guix environment guix`, using `pre-inst-env`, etc

      This is a direct response to the question, so it makes sense to write it out, but Spitz's piece (linked earlier) Open source is not enough describes the problem adequately.

  3. Apr 2021
    1. Coordination: More environments require more coordination. Teams need to track which feature is deployed to which environment. Bugs need to be associated with environments. Every environment represents a particular ‘state’ of the codebase, and this has to be tracked somewhere to make sure that customers & stakeholders are seeing the right things;

      Try to remember the last time you heard one of the following phrases:

      • "Oh, I deployed it in the X environment"
      • "It was working in the stage environment"
  4. Mar 2021
    1. Or is this a call for mainstream operating systems and applications to get creative (read, nice tiling or splitting by default)?What if all browsers suported single page split view? So that the left side was your regular view, half width, and the right side was the continuation of the same page, where the left side ended.
    1. Sorry you’re surprised. Issues are filed at about a rate of 1 per day against GLib. Merge requests at a rate of about 1 per 2 days. Each issue or merge request takes a minimum of about 30 minutes (across at least 2 people) to analyse, put together a fix, test it, review it, fix it, review it and merge it. I’d estimate the average is closer to 3 hours than 30 minutes. Even at the fastest rate, it would take 3 working months to clear the backlog of ~1000 issues. I get a small proportion of my working time to spend on GLib (not full time).
    1. Nothing about the Unix Philosophy explicitly relates to a culture of software sharing. However, it should be no mystery that it comes from the software community where we argue at length about the best way to make our programs properly Free. Software that is developed according to these principles is easier to share, reuse, repurpose, and maintain.
    1. If JavaScript were detached from the client and server platforms, the pressure of being a monoculture would be lifted — the next iteration of the JavaScript language or run-time would no longer have to please every developer in the world, but instead could focus on pleasing a much smaller audience of developers who love JavaScript and thrive with it, while enabling others to move to alternative languages or run-times.
    2. As to opinions about the shortcomings of the language itself, or the standard run-times, it’s important to realize that every developer has a different background, different experience, different needs, temperament, values, and a slew of other cultural motivations and concerns — individual opinions will always be largely personal and, to some degree, non-technical in nature.
    1. Suppose an administrator creates a forum using open source forum software, and then heavily modifies it by adding new features and options. This process requires extensive modifications to existing code and deviation from the original functionality of that software.
    1. Digital technology may contain no moving parts but it still, somehow, gets worn, splintered and corroded. It rots. It decays. The rot, though, is mostly invisible (and un-smellable). Still, one day, the thing is broken.

    Tags

    Annotators

    URL

  5. Feb 2021
    1. provide interfaces so you don’t have to think about them

      Question to myself: Is not having to think about it actually a good goal to have? Is it at odds with making intentional/well-considered decisions?  Obviously there are still many of interesting decisions to make even when using a framework that provides conventions and standardization and makes some decisions for you...

    1. note that TRB source code modifications are not proprietary

      In other words, you can build on this software in your proprietary software but can't change the Trailblazer source unless you're willing to contribute it back.

      loophole: I wonder if this will actually just push people to move their code -- which at the core is/would be a direction modification to the source code - out to a separate module. That's so easy to do with Ruby, so this restriction hardly seems like it would have any effect on encouraging contributions.

    2. The LGPL allows users to use and integrate LGPL software components into their own software without being required to release the source code of their own software components. However, if users modify LGPL software components (“derivative work”), they are required to make the modified software component available under the same LGPL license. To avoid the latter with TRB, users have to comply with para. 5 LGPLv2.1: A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or linked with it, is called a “work that uses the Library”. Such a work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore falls outside the scope of this License. In other words: if you use the TRB libraries in your commercial applications or Open-Source projects, you’re not creating a derivative work of Trailblazer. Your software can be distributed under any terms.
    1. Trailblazer extends the conventional MVC stack in Rails. Keep in mind that adding layers doesn't necessarily mean adding more code and complexity. The opposite is the case: Controller, view and model become lean endpoints for HTTP, rendering and persistence. Redundant code gets eliminated by putting very little application code into the right layer.
    2. While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.
    1. Why is all this interaction code better? Two reasons: One, you can reuse the FindAccount interaction in other places, like your API controller or a Resque task. And two, if you want to change how accounts are found, you only have to change one place.

      Pretty weak arguments though...

      1. We could just as easily used a plain object or module to extract this for easy reuse and having it in only one place (avoiding duplication).
    1. @adisos if reform-rails will not match, I suggest to use: https://github.com/orgsync/active_interaction I've switched to it after reform-rails as it was not fully detached from the activerecord, code is a bit hacky and complex to modify, and in overall reform not so flexible as active_interaction. It has multiple params as well: https://github.com/orgsync/active_interaction/blob/master/spec/active_interaction/modules/input_processor_spec.rb#L41

      I'm not sure what he meant by:

      fully detached from the activerecord I didn't think it was tied to ActiveRecord.

      But I definitely agree with:

      code is a bit hacky and complex to modify

    1. With the introduction of CPUs which ran faster than the original 4.77 MHz Intel 8088 used in the IBM Personal Computer, programs which relied on the CPU's frequency for timing were executing faster than intended. Games in particular were often rendered unplayable. To provide some compatibility, the "turbo" button was added. Engaging turbo mode slows the system down to a state compatible with original 8086/8088 chips.
    1. As of today, you can Wishlist OpenTTD on SteamE. Historically, OpenTTD always had a single home from where we distributed the game. We used to be hosted on SourceForge (you know you are old, if you remember that being a thing :D), and slowly moved towards our own self-created distribution methods. These days, we mostly distribute our game via our website. But times are changing, and so is our hair. Over the last few months, we have silently been working to become a bit more visible in the world. Don’t worry, not for reasons you might think: OpenTTD has as many active users as it had in 2007. But more because we no longer think it is the right approach to only distribute via our own website.
    1. As of today, you can Wishlist OpenTTD on SteamE. Historically, OpenTTD always had a single home from where we distributed the game. We used to be hosted on SourceForge (you know you are old, if you remember that being a thing :D), and slowly moved towards our own self-created distribution methods. These days, we mostly distribute our game via our website. But times are changing, and so is our hair. Over the last few months, we have silently been working to become a bit more visible in the world. Don’t worry, not for reasons you might think: OpenTTD has as many active users as it had in 2007. But more because we no longer think it is the right approach to only distribute via our own website. This became painfully apparent when we noticed other people post OpenTTD on some stores. They are not always updated with new releases, sometimes even slacking behind a few years. And maybe more important to us: we can not guarantee that the uploaded version is unmodified and is the version as we intended. So, instead of fighting it, why not turn around and join them! Why not release our own, verified, builds on those stores! And this is exactly what we have been working on lately. And when I say “we”, a bit ironic to me, I mean the two developers that are around longest (myself and orudge) ;) A while back orudge added OpenTTD to the Microsoft Store. And today, I am happy to announce we will be on SteamE too! Well, we are on Steam, but we haven’t released anything there yet (sorry that I got your hopes up, just to squash them right after :( ). This is partially because of how Steam works, but also because we know we can bring a better experience for Steam with our upcoming release. That brings me to the most exciting news: if everything goes as planned, we will release OpenTTD 1.11 on Steam on the first of April, 2021! And that is not even an April fools’ joke! You can already Wishlist OpenTTD today .. and till we release on Steam, you can find our game via our website ;)
    1. “Functional programming language” is not a clearly defined term. From the various properties that are typically associated with functional programming I only want to focus on one: “Immutability” and referential transparency.

      I mean not clearly defined seems wrong, there are common accepted characteristics that make a language functional.

    1. But all of these attempts misunderstand why the Open Source ecosystem is successful as a whole. The ecosystem of fairly standard licenses provides a level playing field that allows collaboration with low friction, and produces massive value for everyone involved – both to those that contribute and to those that don't. It is not without problems (there are many essential but unsexy projects that are struggling with funding), but introducing more friction won't improve the success of this ecosystem – it will just lead to some parts of the ecosystem to break off.
    2. It turns out that creating and using Free Software is not just good to individuals, but for businesses as well, for example by building upon publicly available components and by collaborating shared software. The term Open Source is a business-friendly rebranding of the Free Software concept. This line of thought was also widely successful, e.g. Firefox/Mozilla was an open sourcing of Netscape software.
  6. Jan 2021
    1. Unfortunately, this probably means a death knoll for this gem, at least I predict it will contribute to its slow trajectory towards insignificance/unknownness/lack-of-users.

      Why? Because it is already the less popular option in this comparison: https://ruby.libhunt.com/compare-premailer-rails-vs-roadie-rails

      and being actively maintained is an important factor in evaluating competing options.

      So of course people will see that the premailer option is the option that is still actively maintained, is still continuing to be improved, and they'll see that this one has been relegated to dormancy/stagnancy/neglect/staleness, which will only amplify the degree/sense of abandonment it already has from its maintainer (only now it will be its users that start to abandon it, as I now have).

    2. Maintaining open source software requires energy and a "want"/"passion". I've not been using this project myself for years, and I mainly work in other things than Rails at this point. That means I'm far removed from this project and see no personal gain in maintaining the energy to keep this going.
    1. It appears that Canonical is continuing it's vice grip of unliateral, maybe dictatorial control on the development of Snap to the benefit of Ubuntu, but to the detriment of groups like Linuxmint, and all other non-Ubuntu based Linux distributions - like CentOS/Redhat, Suse/openSuSe, Solus, Arch/Manjaro, PCLinuxOS, etc, that are pushing Flatpak as a truly cross-distro application solution that works equally well and non-problematic for all. .
    2. I run a fairly ancient RedHat Enterprise 6 on my 32-bit test machine and if I need something requiring Gtk3 (such as a latest Firefox or Chrome), I just make a chroot and use debootstrap (from EPEL) to get me a Debian 9 userland for that program. Easy. No bizarre "app stores", no conflicting packages. Do people use Snap app-stores because they don't know how to use the chroot command? Or are they just lazy? If it is because they want the added security of a container, substitute chroot with lxc... Shouldn't be necessary though; if you avoid non-ethical software (i.e App-stores), you are very unlikely to need the added security.
    1. Volkswagen, the world’s largest car maker, has outspent all rivals in a global bid by auto incumbents to beat Tesla. For years, industry leaders and analysts pointed to the German company as evidence that, once unleashed, the old guard’s raw financial power paired with decades of engineering excellence would make short work of Elon Musk’s scrappy startup. What they didn’t consider: Electric vehicles are more about software than hardware. And producing exquisitely engineered gas-powered cars doesn’t translate into coding savvy.

      Many thought Volkswagen would crush Tesla as soon as they put their weight behind an electric car initiative. What they didn't consider was that an electric car is more about software than it is about hardware.