> Given that they claim to individually review each app within a short timeframe, a bulk upload would make it impractical for them to provide this service.
And they do a super good job at reviewing apps, right? /s
1,652 karma · joined August 22, 2014
And they do a super good job at reviewing apps, right? /s
It is true that Clojure doesn't have a spec, but it is very stable. I saw some very minor breaking changes in Clojure, and most code just works after a update (including very big projects). Clojure is very conservative in general, and this is something that Rich says as a explicit design goal.
BTW, are you referring to ClojureScript? Because ClojureScript is far from a toy language, it works well and we use in production. Sure it have some warts, but they're mostly workable and while I am not a fan, I am not a fan of frontend in general so this is probably part of the problem.
Nope, someone wrote an article arguing for fixed formatting and Bozhidar Batsov decided to reply, but pretty much what he said is what is accepted by Clojure community anyway.
Different needs for different people?
I mean, every time I reinstall Windows it takes some days to me to setup it too (removing all crapware/ads, changing settings in places that doesn't make sense to me, install all my programs without a proper supported package manager [1], etc etc). In my NixOS setup it takes literally minutes if you exclude the download/build phase.
[1]: Yeah, I know about and use chocolatey. Still isn't the same, since for example most programs still use their own update mechanism, installation of packages fail constantly (specially more complicated packages like NVIDIA drivers) and there is some other headaches.
AFAIK, ping is a setuid binary (since it needs raw socket, that is a privileged operation) so a program that implements ping by itself would need to do the same (or it would work for root).
Like I said above, once every boot is fine, this is what my Dell Laptop does when I plug a non standard charger for example.
> Why can't apple disable features, like battery life indication, for batteries they haven't profiled for the service? This is what makes users trust apple, if your phone says battery life is 80%, you can be pretty sure it is 80%.
No, this is not for "trust", this is only for greed since without competition Apple can ask basically any price for changing your smartphone battery.
Take an example of iPods, it was also an immensely popular Apple product and it didn't have anything like this and still was fine. I don't remember anyone saying that "buying an used iPod is untrustworthy".
Actually, the only issue Apple even had with batteries as far as I remember was caused by them, thanks to the feature that slowed iPhones when the battery was not running at sufficient capacity.
The kind of culture you're in favor for, blaming engineer for mistakes and punishing them, is exactly what makes the kinda of Equifax mistake possible. Suddenly, people stop to improve things and just do the minimum possible so they can keep their job, since anything else can cause a mistake that will cost your next performance cycle (or even worse, your job).
This is true, but when I am writing a script in Python I generally don't need to pipe as often as I do in bash. Python offer many replacements for things that in Bash you need to call another process.
That is, of course, if performance isn't necessary. When it is bash is still unbeatable because of the pipes.
The thing that makes argparse particularly useful is because it is in stdlib, so if you use you can create a Python script without external dependencies.
Wow, this is pretty exciting. Hope we also see match being accepted in Python 3.10, so this would make (for me at least) one of the best Python releases in years.
I don't know about the SDK though, but it does seem to have some apps (not that I use many of them).
AFAIK, there is also less banding issues even in 8-bit content, and the filesize is generally smaller too. The biggest reason against its usage is more computational power, though.
This is not the fault of the type system though. It is the fault of things like enforcing access via private/protected/public keywords. While most people confuse this with a static type system, this is not part of the type system.
> [..] they are not used to "model the problem elegantly".
I concur, but let me make my point more clearly: this is either the fault of the language for not allowing the programmer to express itself clearly, or it is the fault of the programmer by using patterns from a less expressive programming language in a more expressive programming language.
This is not the fault of the type system, that doesn't (by itself) require the user to create a Class with getters and setters for every attribute, for example. If the language you're using makes you do those kinda of things, it is the problem with the language itself, the type system is just the point of the iceberg (that is making the problem worse).
> If type driven development really produced bug free code while requiring the same cognitive load as hammering tens of lines of code one after the other, we will all be using something like Idris.
It doesn't produce bug free code (because there is still logic bugs), but it helps to reduce the number of bugs. But only in expressive type systems that are also sound. The Java type system for example doesn't help much (however I think they implemented nullables at some point, so the situation should be better).
This is the fault of the language or programmer itself instead of its type system.
I am programming in Dart and sometimes I feel that I am writing some code just to workaround some limitations in the language (the language itself is nice 90% of time, just to make it clear).
Now, I also program in Python using mypy, and I never needed to write "10 getters and setters" to make the compiler happy. Sometimes I do need to write additional code to make mypy happy, but generally it is in overly clever code that mypy doesn't understand. So generally fixing the issues makes the code better.
Someone also said the REPL, and while the REPL in Python is not as powerful as, i.e.: Clojure, it is still something that feels essential for a exploratory workflow that is the scripts case. Testing is not the same, it is much slower to interact, specially when you just want to check a hypothesis (also, most scripts I don't want to write tests, they will probably break anyway in a few months like the example of web scrapping I said above).
Probably I can't, but I am not interested. Nothing that you cite bothers me so why should I work to disprove you? Like yourself said, this is what matters to you, not me. For me, the performance and interface changes brings much more value than what you put in your post, and I did use old Firefox but really was forcing myself to use it since I don't like Google hegemony. The new Firefox is for me a mobile browser that is finally a joy to use.
However, this is not my point. The Register does makes clickbait titles and clickbait articles. Of course this update broke some workflows (https://xkcd.com/1172/), but instead of getting data and saying that "new Firefox update broke this and that workflow, Mozilla is working to fix it" (this is assuming a good editorial asking for Mozilla input before publishing the article, not a tabloid like The Register), what we actually got is "Mozilla pushed a broken Firefox Android build".
Yeah, I am going by the complaints from users in the Play Store ratings. It is pretty clear that the number is not big (the score on Firefox is still pretty high), but the complaints are very focal saying "this is the worst update ever".
> but most users are probably pretty satisfied with the update
And yeah, this one I don't have any backup, this is why I said "probably".
The real ones is that Firefox Quantum is finally out for Android (Firefox for Android jumped from version 68.0 to 79.0), and this bought a completely new interface too.
Now, the new interface is very nice (bottom navigator bar FTW) and the browser is much faster, but it lost some features and there is a limited number of extensions available for now (Mozilla seems to be manually approving them).
So what happened? A small but vocal number of users complained and we get this news from The Register like this was the worse mistake ever. It is not.
Sure Mozilla could have managed this update better (losing settings seems pretty bad for example), but most users are probably pretty satisfied with the update. I couldn't use Firefox Android before (too slow compared to Chrome) and I was using Nightly (and afterwards Beta) just so I could get the performance improvements since the browser is so much faster. And also the new interface looks fantastic.