I would have written that comment if you hadn’t already done it.
I don’t know exactly why people think that we can “just” do whatever they ask for.
Maybe it has something to do with how invisible software is to the tech-illiterate person but I’m not convinced. I’m sure there are other professions that get similar treatment.
I do have Ctrl under ä (which would be the semicolon key on US layout, I think). Interestingly, on Mac (with Karabiner) it caused regular mistypes when typing fast, even after a year. On my 12 year old Thinkpad (Linux with keyd) however, I’ve never found the overloading to be an issue.
I’ll probably give the layout in the article a shot. It sounds interesting.
Maybe Elm? It was the result of Evan Czaplicki’s thesis.
I think it heavily depends on the size and (management) culture of your employer. My most recent gig had me sit in way too many meetings that were way too long (1hr daily anyone?), dealing with a lot of tooling issues and touching legacy code as little as possible while still adding new features to our main product on a daily basis. Obviously “we don’t need a clean solution. We’re going to replace that codebase anyways, next year™”.
The job before that had me actually code for about 80% of the time, but writing tests is annoying and slows you down and we don’t have time for that. Odd how there was always time for fixing the regressions later.
Different strokes for folks I guess 🤷♂️
That programming as a career means you’re going to spend writing nice, clean code 80% of the time.
It’s rather debugging code or tooling problems 50% of the time, talking to other people (whether necessary or not) about 35% of the time and the rest may be spent on actually spending time doing the thing you actually enjoy.
I may be exaggerating, but only a little.
For the jargon part: See this Github repo. It ain’t exhaustive, but it’s a start.
Other than that, all I have to add is that functional programming does not necessarily imply static typing. There is a whole world of Scheme-variants that are dynamically typed.
Am I understanding this correctly that dynamic programming == breaking a problem into smaller (reoccurring) sub-problems and using caching to improve performance?
… an average hobbyist programmer …
and
… create an MVP?
are at odds in my opinion. Are you looking for a hobby project or are you trying to build a product that you can sell/persuade investors with?
If you are interested in building such a thing because you care about the idea, go for it! Even if you abandon the whole thing after a few months of consistent work, I’m pretty confident that you will gain something in the process (insights, learnings, an idea for an actual product etc.).
However if your goal is to build something that’s commercially viable, I would do some market analysis (see what’s out there, what you want to do differently) and maybe talk to people who have already launched products or started companies before, instead of basing my decision on the responses from strangers on social media.
The thing is, it works like this in certain countries. At least in Switzerland and Germany it is possible to make an apprenticeship as a programmer. This means there is a structured path for the vocational education that must meet certain regulatory criteria. Normally this takes 3-4 years to finish and includes both, working at a company as well as visiting vocational school. College is often done after finishing one’s apprenticeship to broaden the understanding of more complex or advanced topics like security, architecture, project management, advanced math etc.
I don’t understand why this system is not more common in other places. Programming (not CS) is very much like a craft and to large degrees can be taught as/similar to one.
But if they had such strict access control they also had backups. Right? Right?!
I don’t think it’s just a you problem :)
I didn’t think so. I guess Reddit has conditioned me to not state my opinion without a disclaimer, lest someone wants to start arguing :D
Btw. I don’t think you’ll find ZSH more intuitive to program. While it is an awesome interactive shell, the scripting part is Bash taken to the extreme.
Thank you for the thorough write-up. I’m surprised the answer is a “(mostly) yes” (Betteridge’s law).
Will listen to it as soon as I have time.
Bash script. Not necessarily hard to understand but very unintuitive in my opinion. I’ve written so much bash script over the years and still have to look up how to do simple things like iterate over associative arrays or do basic string manipulation. Maybe it’s just a me problem though 🤷
Yeah, I don’t know the exact structure of your translation files but a deep merge of your fallback files and the requested locale file should be enough.
Obviously I don’t know your codebase but couldn’t you do something like the following?
function loadTranslations(locale) {
const fallbackTranslations = require("/i18n/en.json");
const translations = require(`/i18n/${locale}.json`);
return {
...fallbackTranslations,
...translations
};
}
I think I misunderstood your initial post (and definitely didn’t read it as carefully as I should have 😅).
Do I understand your correctly that your goal is a companion object for your arrays that simplifies access? Not a new data structure that you’d user instead of arrays? If so, most of my points are moot.
If your IDs are integers then there is no need for an hybrid at all, precisely because all you have to do is put each item at the same position as their ID.
If you don’t treat IDs as opaque values, this is true.
I’ll definitely run benchmarks so that users would be aware of performance losses, if any. But use cases of hybrid arrays are mostly small datasets so it usually shouldn’t be a concern indeed.
I think my point is actually wrong (it was really late when I was writing my initial response). Performance would be O(n), since that’s the worst case scenario.
Anyways, I hope you could take something useful from my answer.
Happy hacking :D
I’m pretty sure I’ve been in your situation but haven’t created a dictionary/array hybrid.
Without any more details about your use case and situation, I can imagine a few pitfalls with your solution:
ArrayLike([ {id: "1" }, { id: "2" } ])[1] returns { id: "2" }, how do you access { id: "1" } by ID?That being said, unless you work in an environment where your code should be easily understandable by others, the best way to find out if this is a good idea or not, is to try :)
Me personally, I usually use an associateBy function, when I need a values-by-ID structure. Of course this is not as convenient to use as your approach, but it’s good enough for me.
// this WILL drop elements if key is not unique
function associateBy(array, key) {
return array.reduce((acc, el) => ({
...acc,
[el[key]]: el
}), {});
}
associateBy([
{id: "foo"},
{id: "bar"}
], "id").foo; // -> {id: "foo"}
Good luck!
Probably because most don’t know what Chromium is, or what open-source means or why certain websites don’t work (or work as well as in Chrome). Sad but true.
I love the honesty. It’s really refreshing to see someone take accountability instead of becoming defensive.