This is one of the cases where you should indeed rely on Google.
You just created a modern take on LMGTFY
Readit Newscharlieflowers commented on How University Students Use Claude anthropic.com/news/anthro... · Posted by u/pseudolus
charlieflowers commented on The Big TDD Misunderstanding (2022) linkedrecords.com/the-big... · Posted by u/WolfOliver
Eh, I knew this would somehow come back to that Kent C Dodds stuff. I can respect the guy, but his opinion on valuable testing differs from mine and quite a lot of others. His opinion is "the more your tests represent the way your users use your app, the better they are". For E2E tests, yes, absolutely. For unit tests, no... not at all. As a very short example, an E2E test will prove that yes, I did indeed show a button on the screen. A unit test will prove the code that put it there worked. The code can "fail open" for many reasons. (In JavaScript for example, forgetting an `await` keyword can return a truthy value!).
The worst part about it is that he called himself a thought leader, called his approach a "best practice" and had nothing really to back that up. Now people go around repeating it all the time. It's frustrating.
Respectfully, I disagree, though maybe we haven’t yet articulated enough details to know exactly where we disagree.
I think underlying Kent’s statement is an observation that is undeniably true. The closer a test is to the actual way the software will be used, the better it is in a number of ways, _all else being equal_. All else is never fully equal, which is why everything is about tradeoffs.
But when a test aligns with how the software will be used, there are a whole bunch of synergies and benefits. Simplicity increases, clarity increases, you start getting multiple payoffs for each bit of effort you invest.
I’m sure people cargo cult it and lose track of the tradeoffs, like anything else, but there’s a solid point under there. And I agree with him, it is valuable enough to be called a “best practice.”
charlieflowers commented on Software development topics I've changed my mind on chriskiehl.com/article/th... · Posted by u/belter
Good stuff!
charlieflowers commented on How concurrency works: A visual guide wyounas.github.io/concurr... · Posted by u/simplegeek
The initial comments here surprise me. I’ve never seen such poor quality comments on such a good article on Hacker News. The article is top notch, highly recommend. It explains from first principles very clearly what the (a?) mechanism is behind model checking.
So is the ability to compute the entire state space and prove that liveness and/or safety properties hold the single main basis of model checker’s effectiveness? Or are there other fundamental capabilities as well?
charlieflowers commented on Trump wins presidency for second time thehill.com/homenews/camp... · Posted by u/koolba
The big picture still is what it is. Americans want a king.
You can get into the more nuanced weeds and there is plenty more nuance there, but the overarching dynamic is people made a tradeoff, and they chose a king.
I've often knocked Russia for continually choosing thugs to run their country (I know its more nuanced than that, but still).
And now America is doing essentially the same thing.
charlieflowers commented on Algorithm = Logic and Control [pdf] doc.ic.ac.uk/~rak/papers/... · Posted by u/acmerfight
Hexagonal / ports and adapters / onion / functional core imperative shell all try to do this.
I'm not a fan of the data tracking that I know those loyalty programs are for, but at least in the US most stores overcharge you if you don't use them (they present it as giving a "discount" if you use them but really you are just getting the fair price denied to non-members) so you would need to have deep pockets to resist them out of principle.
Just yesterday I bought some steaks that were $55 with the loyalty card and $130 (no typo) without.
I’ve never seen a difference that huge before.
charlieflowers commented on An introduction to the theory and practice of poker (2020) hopkinspokercourse.com/... · Posted by u/Igor_Wiwi
You need to be good at deciding which cards to hold and which cards to throw away. You need to know when to get out of a game, and when you should really go out running. Also never count your money while you are playing. You will have time later. But to be realistic the most that you can hope to is to die while you are sleeping.
I would click +1 million if it existed. Lol you had me reading seriously and taking notes up until the counting part.
If members of Congress can make millions trading on info they get from sitting on key committees, then trading based on your first hand experience certainly should be ok.
Last time I checked they hadn't detected anything.
I thought you missed the GP's joke. Then I thought, wait, no, he made an even more subtle joke. :scratches-head: