petalmind

> For example not everyone has a middle name, but you don't want to go all 5th Normal Form on it.

(actual question) how does 5NF apply here?

I thought that this case could be handled null-free by introducing a separate table

people_middlenames (human_id PK, middlename NOT NULL);

Is it already 5NF? I thought 5NF requires more complex structure of data, like explained in Wikipedia, for example.

Thanks,

I wonder what the problem is, how exactly is it falling apart: a) you need to write a lot of "clean up" sub-queries and fragments or b) the question you ask is more complicated and does not fit into the algebra of SQL.

If it's more the first: if your dataset was perfectly cleaned up (say, 3NF, with all data values cleaned up) — how longer would SQL go for you without falling apart?

As I write this comment I realize that it could be worded as "is the problem with the logic or the data"? Thanks,

"caught"

By the way, thank you for the post.

I did not say anything about you. I've read the text as it was presented to me and reported some statistics about it that have caught my eye.

Name of the man is mentioned in the first paragraph (and three times more).

Name of the woman who actually invented the concept you discuss is relegated to "someone" and a footnote.

I think that many HRs would be suspicious about somebody who worked at each job for 2.261 ms.

Inadequate resource allocation does not make something unimportant. If you don't spend effort on better sleep, eat and physical exercise, that does not mean that those are "unimportant", it means that you suck at prioritization.

I guess that my point was that OP should change the framing to something like "how can I find myself in the position where my work is appreciated".

> unimportant legacy projects

are they really unimportant? My goto question to find out how important something is: what happens if we turn it off?

Usually the answer is "haha please do not".

Ask the same question about "new projects that involve new tech stacks". Then proceed to the next step of the OODA loop.

True. Perl exists for more than 30 years already.

Monads are too specific, a lot of things that they are used for could be represented by weaker constructs such as Applicative.

See e.g.: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/desugar... "Furthermore, 10,899 (28.0%) were fully desugared into Applicative and Functor combinators and thus would not require a Monad constraint." б) "The Haxl codebase at Facebook. [...] and 7,600 (26.9%) were fully desugared into Applicative and/or Functor."

Sorry, where did you get this estimation from? (Genuine question).

thanks,

You may also find useful: https://github.com/adworse/iguvium

It's not surprising given that JavaScript was designed and deployed world-wide by C++ developers.