Reducing nested structures is tiresome. Have you tried immer?

With first-class keyword arguments in the language, we don’t have to write the boilerplate code to extract hash options. Unnecessary boilerplate code increases the opportunity for typos and bugs.

How many bot can I have at the same time? Both platforms limit the maximum number of active trading bot that users can have in their accounts. KuCoin allows users to have up to 10 trading bots. If you have 10 active bots already, then you’ll need to shut down one of them before starting another new bot. Pionex allows you to have up to 30 bots on each trading pairs, that means you won’t be able to create new bots with BTC/USDT if you have 30 active bots with it, but you can still create a new bot with other trading pairs. KuCoinPionexDiff. types of bot313Trading fee0.08% for classic grid0.06% for futures grid0.05%Max. bot allowed10 for each accounts30 for each trading pairs As KuCoin and Pionex both provide grid trading bot and DCA Bot, we’re going to compare the difference between these two bots on each platform.

The goal of this gem is to reduce the amount of code that needs to be written when developing a ruby on rails website.

and if I think this is too boilerplatey, I can export a handler from some .js file and pass the error to that: <script> import { onError } from 'svelte' import { genericHandler } from '../my-error-handler.js' onError(genericHandler(e => { // code which is called first to try to handle this locally return true // we've handled it here, don't do anything else. }) </script>

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said.The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack.No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework.I've seen this too many times already.It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks.Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

Which gets the job done, but that's a chunk of boilerplate for a simple accessor

I like auto-property generation... who needs boilerplate code?

OpenFaaS® makes it easy for developers to deploy event-driven functions and microservices to Kubernetes without repetitive, boiler-plate coding.

They are an abstraction that will save code and bugs, and introduce strong conventions.

The DSL has a weaker control over the program’s flow — we can’t have conditions unless we add a special step

it is inconvenient to write specific implementations for each datatype contained, especially if the code for each datatype is virtually identical. For example, in C++, this duplication of code can be circumvented by defining a class template

Supporting languages may use monads to abstract away boilerplate code needed by the program logic.

They help streamlining the control flow, and take away control code while providing you with an incredibly cool developer experience.

Using a terminus to indicate a certain outcome - in turn - allows for much stronger interfaces across nested activities and less guessing! For example, in the new endpoint gem, the not_found terminus is then wired to a special “404 track” that handles the case of “model not found”. The beautiful thing here is: there is no guessing by inspecting ctx[:model] or the like - the not_found end has only one meaning!

Frankly, if the Ubuntu Desktop team “switch” from making a deb of Chromium to making a snap, I doubt they’d switch back. It’s a tremendous amount of work for developer(s) to maintain numerous debs across all supported releases. Maintaining a single snap is just practically and financially more sensible.

This example of the chromium really shows that unless snaps or other similar format was used, applications would have to be sometime very heavily patched to work on older versions of systems to the point that it generates so much work that it would not be worth do to it otherwise, or at least not worth when the snap option exists and doesn’t require that much more work.

We all know that real business logic does not belong in the presentation layer, but what about simple presentation-oriented things like coloring alternate rows in table or marking the selected option in a <select> dropdown? It seems equally wrong to ask the controller/business logic code to compute these down to simple booleans in order to reduce the logic in the presentation template. This route just lead to polluting the business layer code with presentation-oriented logic.

Templates with logic versus "logic-less" templates is a hotly debated point among template language designer and users. Dust straddles the divide by adopting a "less logic" stance.

Full-of-logic, logic-less, and less-logic solutions

Although it may be estimated on chest radiograph, tube thoracostomy is the only reliable means to quantify the amount of hemothorax.

112(2.1), 112(2.2) or 112(2.4), or section 187.2 or 187.3 or subsection 258(3) or 258(5)