That's what taste kind of does...
606 karma · joined February 19, 2020
Median salary 2022 was £33k. Median house price was £265k; over 8 times the median salary.
Not controlled for interest rates or changes in the tax codes, nor the increases in student loan debts.
Maybe 'quite a few'?
The circular reference thing would have definitely thrown me for a loop though.
I don't think there's 65 million people in the UK over 16.
There are business reasons to maintain backwards compatibility, and they were very strong before the easily updated software.
It's to convince me to buy their car instead of one from Tesla or Mercedes. And me walking into a BMW dealership does not mean I've decided to conduct business with them.
Or was the manager just interested in trivia?
* it's not an error to have an unbound name in scope; just referencing it at runtime is an error. * there is a reasonable default; anything can be set to None
This doesn't hold in C++. If your class throws during its initialization, you can't really do much (even default initialization of members may not work). Reassignment may not be possible if it was declared const.
And there's still the issue of 'which objects successfully initialized'?
If, as is kind of the point of RAII, your constructors do some initialization and that initialization may fail, then:
If you have a single object that may fail to construct then maintaining it in scope for the catch block doesn't make sense; it's not initialized.
If you have several, then you still can't maintain them in scope, because you don't know which ones are actually valid.
Yes there are other patterns that wouldn't have this issue (acquiring resources outside of the constructor), but then you can just declare your objects outside of the try-catch block.
No... I don't think so.
Checked Exceptions are at best, just a 'hey, are you sure that's right thing to do here?' and at worst, an additional source of rigidity in your code that blows up the scale of a minor change.
But to say the solution for people liking something evolution has made us like is to like things evolution made us avoid is... weird?
For some people, some bitter tastes are intense; no amount of 'learning' will ever get me to like coffee for example.
It is more than possible, but for anything non-trivial, it just sucks.
I don't know the truth of the original statement, but it isn't too unbelievable.
You'll never see the myriad of hidden Java services or tools that are internal to 'BigNameCorp Inc.'
You won't hear of the tiny bespoke C# apps that some little dotcom uses to manage some of its processes.
You'll never touch the layers of Python glue holding that Fintech startup together.
Software you see, you know, is either native apps for consumers or Web frontends. Of course C++ and JS dominate.
But there's so much more hidden away, a whole world just tucked under a job interview so most don't see it. In this place, Java may very well be King, but Python, C# Go, and yes, C++ all have their parts to play.
But we tend not to talk about the 'temperature' of electron energy levels. If we did, then they would have negative temperature.
They're a company that mostly makes cars, sure, but they (and investors) clearly view themselves as something else.
22 million commits is a lot though; the author states that the repo was over 8GB "last they checked", and the entire thing looked to be an experiment to determine "Github's or git's breaking point" - I guess they found it.