floppy drive, hard drive, sechs drive — we got building blocks. Crowd sourcing a joke could work.

Excellent, the punchline is sorted, now we just need the rest of the joke.

Or they avoid the need for that solution by avoiding that problem in the first place?.

I don’t even now how anyone keeps track of them and finds the ones they want. And how can you possibly do that quicker than just going to the page afresh.

Part of working on a project for me is assembling links to important pages. It may be days, weeks or months later that I want to come back and there are the links. And of course, anything generically or regularly useful is just a bookmark as you say.

It really seems like people keep tabs open just to keep a list of useful pages. There are much easier and more effective ways to do that.

deleted by creator

I’m not triggered by any of this. I’m not sure why my thinking the question is inane would count as “being triggered”.

Upvotes does not necessarily mean people agree with OP’s stance.

It should mean they think it’s a useful/interesting question and I think it very much is not. It’s just someone whining that it doesn’t look like something they’re used to and a bunch of very patient people generously leading them through the very basics of the language that’s well covered in many introductory tutorials - as such it makes it all a waste of time and worthy of being buried.

The more time I spend on Lemmy the more depressed I am about its potential.

Stupid, wrong-headed comments get solid upvotes if they also hint at some popular sentiment. I even see comments that are literally unreadable nonsense get solidly upvoted, either by bots or by people who just like the vibe they feel from scanning it and don’t care that it’s gobbledygook. Some content makes me wonder if half of Lemmy is just LLMs barfing back and forth at each other.

Then this post is heavily upvoted, even though it’s nothing more than “the syntax isn’t the same as the other language(s) I have seen, waaaaa!”. Is it just people like to see Go criticized? Because there are actual real issues that could be discussed.

Well on Reddit, programmerhumor was mostly populated by people weirdly proud of how bad they are at their job, so I don’t see how Lemmy was going to be different.

I’ve worked in a few startups, and it always annoys me when people say they don’t have time to do it right. You don’t have time not to do it right - code structure and clarity is needed even as a solo dev, as you say, for future you. Barfing out code on the basis of “it works, so ship it” you’ll be tied up in your own spaghetti in a few months. Hence the traditional clean-sheet rewrite that comes along after 18-24 months that really brings progress to its knees.

Ironically I just left the startup world for a larger more established company and the code is some of the worst I’ve seen in a decade. e.g. core interface definitions without even have a sentence explaining the purpose of required functions. Think “you’re required to provide a function called “performControl()”, but to work out its responsibilities you’re going to have to reverse-engineer the codebase”. Worst of all this unprofessional crap is part of that ground-up 2nd attempt rewrite.

What do you think comments are?

These are arguments talking past each other. Sure 1 useful comment and 9 redundant ones can be better than zero, but comments are not reliable and often get overlooked in code changes and become misleading, sometimes critically misleading. So often the choice is between not enough comments versus many comments that you cannot trust and will sometimes tell you flat-out lies and overall just add to the difficulty of reading the code.

There’s no virtue in the number of comments, high or low. The virtue is in the presence of quality comments. If we try to argue about how many there should be we can talk past each other forever.

What? We’re burning more fossil fuels than ever and the earth feedback loops seem to be kicking off. Just because we’re also expanding use of less destructive energy sources doesn’t mean we’re curbing output. Making things worse slightly less quickly isn’t making things better.

But use type annotations everywhere and make sure your code is always checker clean (with checkin or PR CI hooks). And don’t turn off any lint checks through laziness, e.g. docstring checks. Even for a solo dev it’s always worth having everything typed, checker clean, and docstrings (even if they only effectively say “this thing really is what you’d assume”). It all saves time and effort in the long and even medium term.

I’ve worked on serious large scale Python projects and frankly it’s been very pleasant and productive, but only with the above conditions.

1g prerolls are actually the only round-number metric sale I see.

I’m just an emacs … enjoyer (…?) and I just don’t understand the post. I’m pretty sure buffers here refer to something different from emacs buffers as they’re completely unrelated to clipboards. Then from a quick scan of the plug-in mentioned it seems to mimic the clipboard ring emacs has had for many decades (always?).

Basically I have no idea what’s going on here.

Even better, master creating fixup and squash commits and maintain logical commits as you work with git rebase -i --autosquash

Well, it’s not modal by default. It is if you want it to be.

they were actively trying to fly to the light

I can’t see how that could make sense. They’d all just fly straight up at the moon. You can see them all flying in circles around lights.

Really I always thought, and I don’t assume it was my original thought, that they probably were used to keeping the moon at a fixed relative position and they did the same with artificial light.

This is the first time I’ve heard any suggestion of being attracted directly towards the light. How would that make sense? They’d just fly straight at the moon on a clear night.

Was that not the common understanding? That’s what I always assumed was happening - I think I was told as much as a small child.

I suppose it’s confirmed by spatial analysis now.