Botanically a vegetable is anything that is not the reproductive portion of the plant derived from a flower. A root or tuber such as for yam or potato are vegetables. Edible flowers could be considered a vegetable since the ovary has not expanded to contain seed.
Marmelades can’t be made from carrots in the EU, we have the Brits to thank for that who insisted that the term is restricted to citrus fruit, the rest is jam. Especially nuts because the term derives from Portuguese “marmelada”, quince mush, and quinces are definitely not citrus fruit.
Speaking of the Portuguese yes they gave us that classification of carrots as fruits so they didn’t have to call their stuff “carrot spread” or something. Noone else on the continent cares, it doesn’t have any impact on anything else, and next time definitions are re-done they might just leave out the “has to be fruit” part in the definition of jam, or “fruits, or vegetables traditionally used for jam, or with sufficient fruit-like character”.
I guess some lines have to be drawn though otherwise Nutella is going to start calling itself hazelnut jam.
I once saw a little blurb at a sandwich shop stating that tomatoes are fruit, but if you pair them on a sandwich with jalapenos, you’re getting both fruits and vegetables. I demand better scientific accuracy in restaurant marketing signs.
Very much so. Bell peppers and jalapenos are fruits from different strains of capsicum annuum. Biologists apparently don’t agree on whether all chilli/paprika stuff is capsicum annuum, what’s for sure is that they’re all very closely related.
To add to this, vegetable is a culinary term and not a scientific term. Whereas, fruit can be both. Tomatoes are scientifically a fruit, but generally not from a culinary perspective.
This is precisely it: Tomatoes can be sweet enough to be a fruit, they can be acidic enough to be a fruit, but they’re definitely too umami to be fruit.
Next thing people are going to insist on, wilfully ignoring the differences in taxonomy, is that peppercorns are fruit. A stone fruit, just like cherries or peaches.
In reality it really does not matter and the classification is somewhat arbitrary. Just think about adding it to a fruit salad. Would you do it? Then it’s a fruit.
Aren’t fruits subsets of vegetables? Without looking it up I thought that vegetables were the edible part of the plant and fruits are edible reproductive parts of the plant. I could be totally off on that though.
Yea, you’re totally correct. This whole confusion comes from a Supreme Court case that involved tariffs though… Basically, tomatoes are a staple good and should be taxed like a regular vegetable and not receive the elevated fruit tax.
It varies by language since the meaning of fruit and vegetable are language specific but that’s universal for English. A fruit is an edible portion of a plant that contains seeds and a vegetable is an edible portion of a plant, so… all fruits are vegetables.
Ok but like, why draw the line at Massachusetts? Lol. If I make a wrong turn and end up in New Hampshire am I going to have to reevaluate my fruits and vegetables?
So that the mindless automaton delivering your groceries doesn’t unexpectedly give you tomatoes for your sundae, in a future expansion to dish-based orders.
I’ve yet to create a type error that didn’t correspond to me thinking about something wrong.
Well, I can’t think of an English example from the top of my head, but in German the words for Pear and (light) bulb are the same. So there are some exotic use cases.
We have plenty of homographs as well, “lead,” “bow,” etc but every once in a while I’m struck by just how massive the vocabulary of English is compared to… well, every other language.
That English has more words than other languages is a myth. Idk why but it keeps getting perpetuated so i guess people just believe it to be true.
Whats more is that its kinda difficult to even narrow down what a word is in a single language, and even more so to find a definition that fits all of them.
Impressively the babbel article manages to include other commons myths like implying english is some kind of mix language rather than a germanic one when it says “This is largely due to invasions of England by the Vikings and then the Normans” about why English supposedly has more words than other languages. This type of incorporation of loanwords is common in almost all big languages.
It argues based on dictionaries and effectively debunks why you can’t (for comparison I’d like to add that the SAOB of the Swedish Academy lists circa 500k words).
There’s nothing in this article that says English has the most words other than “So, while English is a clear contender for having the most words and German and Turkish have a large capacity for infinite combinations, all languages end up influencing others.” Still, there’s no justification for the “clear contender” bit other than the Oxford dictionary having more words than Larousse and Littré.
Feels to me like the article just reinforces the notion (and reality) that you can’t even make comparisons like that.
Nevermind the fact that this idea is a well known myth in linguistics and arguing against it is kind of like arguing against flat earth theory.
This is giving me stress daymares about Spanish in high school.
Still, it’s an interesting point you make.
But then again, with definitive articles you have a bunch of things that are not supposed to convey gender conveying gender. Like a toaster… It would suck to have to remember the gender of a toaster, or, well toasters in general.
It’s “der Toaster” which makes it masculine. On the other hand, a girl (“das Mädchen”) is neuter. The grammatical gender is somewhat arbitrary and does not follow any “real” rules.
As a German you somehow “feel” if the correct article is used, though.
Embarrassingly for someone whose native language is german, I often use the masculine when the neuter should have been used, because they feel the same to me. I never was taught any formal grammar in german, though, so that might play a role.
It’s less about magical feelings but rules that native speakers know but aren’t aware of. Toaster is clearly male because nouns constructed from verb+er are always male.
Also “male gender” is kinda misleading, it’s basically a mistake early linguistics made because it was so centered around Indo-European languages. The modern term is noun class, and Indo-European languages share the trait that they have three noun classes, one containing the word for “woman”, the other the one for “man”, and another the word for “thing”. That’s where the names come from: Bridges aren’t female in German they simply share a noun class with women.
And girl is neuter in German because all diminutives are. “Deern” is definitely female.
German has different words, too. Even multiple one depending on accuracy
die Birne -> the pear
die Glühbirne -> “glowing pear”, the light bulb, coming from the shape of the bulb, common, but even Germans see that its dumb
die Glühlampe -> “the glowing lamp”, coming from the literally glowing filament that is used to produce light, the usual term
das Leuchtmittel -> “the thing that shines”, no direct translation, closest would be “lamp”, to describe, well, a thing that shines, independent of what is used to produce the light, usually used in technical documentation/environment
German also has multiple other terms to describe a lot of different light bulb shapes and types. Germans can even make up completely new types of light bulbs due to the heavy use of compound words, and every other German can understand that on the fly without further explanation.
Let me just imagine some.
das Bootshausseitenflutlicht -> a floodlight at the side of a boat house
die Dreiecksleuchte -> a lamp or light bulb in the shape of a triangle
das Hinterhausnachtlicht -> a night light for a part of a tenement house accessible only through a courtyard
That’s really cool. For whatever it’s worth I was joking. I’ve always admired German and almost elected to learn it in highschool, but socio-geographically(an off the cuff word combination in English), learning Spanish made more sense, as there are many Spanish speakers. But I digress; thank you for explaining such a neat feature of your language to me. I also must admit that the English word is not totally dissimilar in origin; a light-bulb glows in a lamp, but an onion is a bulb in the ground, so it isn’t too different from glowpears.
The joke is that almost everyone calls them vegetables because the botanic categorisation of parts of plants is niche jargon that is not useful in everyday life, whereas the culinary categorisation is useful, and so your shopping list correcting you is worse than unnecessary.
But that’s not what TypeScript does. The joke in the meme doesn’t really even make sense.
A better analogy would be you have a basket that’s explicitly labeled “Fruit” and TypeScript complains if you try to put laundry detergent in it because you said it’s supposed to be a basket of fruit.
This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t use or understand TypeScript.
This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t use or understand TypeScript.
It was made by someone who doesn’t understand types, period.
Curious if it’s the same wizard who was explaining that Linus doesn’t understand programming because he has opinions on arm vs Intel architecture. EVERYONE programs in JavaScript anyways and my JavaScript always works on arm. Has Linus lost the plot?
Some languages split the word “fruit” up in those two cases. In Dutch for example, the botanical definition of fruit translates to “vrucht” whereas the culinary definition translates to “fruit”.
Some languages split the word “fruit” up in those two cases
I wish English did this more. There’s way too many words with an overly large number of meanings.
The word “free” meaning both “freedom” and “doesn’t cost money” can be confusing - some languages use “gratis” or an equivalent word for the latter definition. Sure, you can use it as a Latin loan word in English, but that’s not common.
I hate Typescript for promising me that nobody can put cyanide on the list, but in reality it disallows ME from putting cyanide on the list, but everyone else from the outside is still allowed to do so by using the API which is plain JavaScript again
The main problem with JavaScript and TypeScript is that there is such a little entrybarrier to it, that way too many people use it without understanding it. The amount of times that we had major issues in production because someone doesn’t understand TypeScript is not countable anymore and our project went live only 4 months ago.
For example, when you use nest.js and want to use a boolean value as a query parameter.
You see this code. You don’t see anything wrong with it. The architect looks at it in code review and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. But then you do a GET https://something.com/valueOfMyBoolean?myBoolean=false and you get “myBoolean is true” and if you do typeOf(myBoolean) you will see that, despite you declaring it twice, myBoolean is not a boolean but a string. But when running the unit-tests, myBoolean is a boolean.
I’ve never used TS, and I’m not exactly sure what nest.js even does, but building a TypeScript project on top of a JavaScript library not designed for it seems like asking for trouble. Is that standard practice?
This is more a condemnation of nest.js than ts. It seems great in theory. I like the architecture and the ability to share models and interfaces between front and backend, but it’s objectively makes everything more complicated. It adds layers of abstraction that should not be necessary and it’s such a niche/unpopular framework for backend systems that you generally have to jump through hoops to do anything moderately complex. Not only do new devs have to learn typescript to use it, they have to learn the nest architecture to know how to do things “the right way” and you still end up in situations like this which looks perfectly valid but isn’t. Typescript was never meant to be used for backend, and trying to make it do so and then complaining about it is like jogging while carrying a gun, shooting yourself in the foot, and blaming the gun.
Two questions immediately come to mind. 1) Would you buy the cyanide if it was on the list. 2) Where does one casually buy cyanide? I can’t imagine a case where I’d need some, but it would be handy to know if I ever did.
I know you used to be able to get it for pest control, but maybe not anymore. You could also make it the old-fashioned way with molten washing soda. It can be used to make Prussian blue, for one thing.
Obviously take all necessary precautions, especially keeping NaCN away from acids.
I swear to god, sometimes I really don’t know what Typescript really wants from me. It’s like some old god: you know it needs a sacrifice but the god is not telling you exactly what he wants. So you can only try and pray.
Yeah I don’t get why it spits out whole types instead of only differences between them. Like “function expects non-null ‘some.param.in.object’ of type ‘string’ in argument ‘someArgument’, which is missing in passed argument”.
I don’t like it but God help me if I try to bring up that we shouldn’t use it. I understand it I just don’t like how it slows everything down for in my opinion is not much gain.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
No NSFW content.
Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
Biologists: but tomato is a berry, which is subset of fruits
Also biologists: “vegetable” is purely a culinary term, and doesn’t have any significance in the world of botany
As it happens, when we go shopping for food we have more of a culinary mindset than botanical.
Exactly
A vegetable is edible plant matter.
deleted by creator
tomatoes are fruits that are often used as vegetables and are botanically classified as berries*
*according to wikipedia and my interpretation of it
Tomatoes are only fruits in a biological sense, vegetable is a culinary term so it makes no sense to mix them up.
My understanding is that the term vegetable is actually a political term, meaning it is categorized as a vegetable for tax reasons.
Vegetables are taxed lower than fruits.
In the EU, carrots are classified as a fruit because otherwise, marmalades made with carrots would be illegal.
Marmelades can’t be made from carrots in the EU, we have the Brits to thank for that who insisted that the term is restricted to citrus fruit, the rest is jam. Especially nuts because the term derives from Portuguese “marmelada”, quince mush, and quinces are definitely not citrus fruit.
Speaking of the Portuguese yes they gave us that classification of carrots as fruits so they didn’t have to call their stuff “carrot spread” or something. Noone else on the continent cares, it doesn’t have any impact on anything else, and next time definitions are re-done they might just leave out the “has to be fruit” part in the definition of jam, or “fruits, or vegetables traditionally used for jam, or with sufficient fruit-like character”.
I guess some lines have to be drawn though otherwise Nutella is going to start calling itself hazelnut jam.
Maybe they should be illegal?
I prefer just calling everything I eat the flesh of whatever it came from. Tomato? Flesh. Lettuce? Flesh. People? Flesh.
My favorites are flesh fries
And if you ate light…
I mixed them up for the joke since the phrase sounds kinda absurd but it’s technically true
I once saw a little blurb at a sandwich shop stating that tomatoes are fruit, but if you pair them on a sandwich with jalapenos, you’re getting both fruits and vegetables. I demand better scientific accuracy in restaurant marketing signs.
Now I wonder if jalapenos are fruit too (scientifically)
Very much so. Bell peppers and jalapenos are fruits from different strains of capsicum annuum. Biologists apparently don’t agree on whether all chilli/paprika stuff is capsicum annuum, what’s for sure is that they’re all very closely related.
Vegetable has no meaning other than “part of a plant* we eat”, so basically all fruits are vegetables
*And in the case of mushrooms, fungi
To add to this, vegetable is a culinary term and not a scientific term. Whereas, fruit can be both. Tomatoes are scientifically a fruit, but generally not from a culinary perspective.
This is precisely it: Tomatoes can be sweet enough to be a fruit, they can be acidic enough to be a fruit, but they’re definitely too umami to be fruit.
Next thing people are going to insist on, wilfully ignoring the differences in taxonomy, is that peppercorns are fruit. A stone fruit, just like cherries or peaches.
Technically, according to the definition of a fruit, the cucumber is also a fruit, so yes, the tomato/cucumber salad is a fruid salad.
According to some YouTube short (maybe it was vsauce?): botanically, fruits are vegetables so tomatoes are vegetables in both classification systems
I’ve seen it too. I think it was Hank or John Green.
In reality it really does not matter and the classification is somewhat arbitrary. Just think about adding it to a fruit salad. Would you do it? Then it’s a fruit.
Intelligence is knowing that tomatoes are a fruit. Wisdom is knowing that they don’t go into a fruit salad.
Charisma is selling salsa as a tomato based fruit salad
Strength is EAT MY DAMN FRUIT SALAD OR I’LL SMASH YOUR FACE IN.
What if you soak them in high fructose corn syrup first?
Then it’s ketchup
Rules are meant to be broken.
Am I missing the joke? Tomatoes are fruits.
Intelligence is knowing Tomatoes are fruits.
Wisdom is knowing not to put them in a fruit salad.
Pragmatism is putting tomatoes with the vegetables because of taste, which is one of the most important parts of food.
Legalism is declaring in 1893 that it is a vegetable for tax purposes, because fuck you, pay taxes.
Greek salad would like a word… the only things that aren’t a fruit in Greek salad are the onions and feta.
A Greek salad is not a fruit salad, it is a…Greek salad.
I think that one might be intelligence too, sorry @xmunk@sh.itjust.works.
salad Greek extends Fruit
{ fruit* Tomato }
As a proud Massachusettsan, tomatoes are definitely vegetables.
(Technically, tomatoes are both fruits and vegetables)
Aren’t fruits subsets of vegetables? Without looking it up I thought that vegetables were the edible part of the plant and fruits are edible reproductive parts of the plant. I could be totally off on that though.
Yea, you’re totally correct. This whole confusion comes from a Supreme Court case that involved tariffs though… Basically, tomatoes are a staple good and should be taxed like a regular vegetable and not receive the elevated fruit tax.
i.e. Americans ruining english for the rest of the world (see also 7th day nutjobs), thanks guys…
Does this vary from place to place?
It varies by language since the meaning of fruit and vegetable are language specific but that’s universal for English. A fruit is an edible portion of a plant that contains seeds and a vegetable is an edible portion of a plant, so… all fruits are vegetables.
Ok but like, why draw the line at Massachusetts? Lol. If I make a wrong turn and end up in New Hampshire am I going to have to reevaluate my fruits and vegetables?
Oh, Massachusetts was behind them being classified as a vegetable but not a fruit for tax reasons.
Well, that depends on definition. But the joke is why on earth would you want to write types on your shopping list? Like this:
Etc.
So that the mindless automaton delivering your groceries doesn’t unexpectedly give you tomatoes for your sundae, in a future expansion to dish-based orders.
I’ve yet to create a type error that didn’t correspond to me thinking about something wrong.
Why not? If a shop is having a sale on fruits only then I would like to sort out all the fruits quickly.
To be conformant with PEP-8.
Sorting the list by type might help you get everything located in a section of the store before you move to the next section.
Well, I can’t think of an English example from the top of my head, but in German the words for Pear and (light) bulb are the same. So there are some exotic use cases.
We have plenty of homographs as well, “lead,” “bow,” etc but every once in a while I’m struck by just how massive the vocabulary of English is compared to… well, every other language.
That English has more words than other languages is a myth. Idk why but it keeps getting perpetuated so i guess people just believe it to be true.
Whats more is that its kinda difficult to even narrow down what a word is in a single language, and even more so to find a definition that fits all of them.
No it isn’t?
https://www.babbel.com/en/magazine/language-most-words
Impressively the babbel article manages to include other commons myths like implying english is some kind of mix language rather than a germanic one when it says “This is largely due to invasions of England by the Vikings and then the Normans” about why English supposedly has more words than other languages. This type of incorporation of loanwords is common in almost all big languages.
It argues based on dictionaries and effectively debunks why you can’t (for comparison I’d like to add that the SAOB of the Swedish Academy lists circa 500k words).
There’s nothing in this article that says English has the most words other than “So, while English is a clear contender for having the most words and German and Turkish have a large capacity for infinite combinations, all languages end up influencing others.” Still, there’s no justification for the “clear contender” bit other than the Oxford dictionary having more words than Larousse and Littré.
Feels to me like the article just reinforces the notion (and reality) that you can’t even make comparisons like that.
Nevermind the fact that this idea is a well known myth in linguistics and arguing against it is kind of like arguing against flat earth theory.
You don’t really know what you’re talking about
English doesn’t even has definite articles.
This is giving me stress daymares about Spanish in high school.
Still, it’s an interesting point you make.
But then again, with definitive articles you have a bunch of things that are not supposed to convey gender conveying gender. Like a toaster… It would suck to have to remember the gender of a toaster, or, well toasters in general.
It’s “der Toaster” which makes it masculine. On the other hand, a girl (“das Mädchen”) is neuter. The grammatical gender is somewhat arbitrary and does not follow any “real” rules.
As a German you somehow “feel” if the correct article is used, though.
Embarrassingly for someone whose native language is german, I often use the masculine when the neuter should have been used, because they feel the same to me. I never was taught any formal grammar in german, though, so that might play a role.
It’s less about magical feelings but rules that native speakers know but aren’t aware of. Toaster is clearly male because nouns constructed from verb+er are always male.
Also “male gender” is kinda misleading, it’s basically a mistake early linguistics made because it was so centered around Indo-European languages. The modern term is noun class, and Indo-European languages share the trait that they have three noun classes, one containing the word for “woman”, the other the one for “man”, and another the word for “thing”. That’s where the names come from: Bridges aren’t female in German they simply share a noun class with women.
And girl is neuter in German because all diminutives are. “Deern” is definitely female.
Yeah, fuck that. English is bs enough.
Edit: yeah, that “feeling” is knowing it so well, you don’t totally understand it, and also means it’s hard to convey
We got diff’ernt words fer lightbulb and pear though, I tell ya hwat.
German has different words, too. Even multiple one depending on accuracy
German also has multiple other terms to describe a lot of different light bulb shapes and types. Germans can even make up completely new types of light bulbs due to the heavy use of compound words, and every other German can understand that on the fly without further explanation.
Let me just imagine some.
That’s really cool. For whatever it’s worth I was joking. I’ve always admired German and almost elected to learn it in highschool, but socio-geographically(an off the cuff word combination in English), learning Spanish made more sense, as there are many Spanish speakers. But I digress; thank you for explaining such a neat feature of your language to me. I also must admit that the English word is not totally dissimilar in origin; a light-bulb glows in a lamp, but an onion is a bulb in the ground, so it isn’t too different from glowpears.
Biggest English W
As a german I agree, even if I never have to think about it
The joke is that almost everyone calls them vegetables because the botanic categorisation of parts of plants is niche jargon that is not useful in everyday life, whereas the culinary categorisation is useful, and so your shopping list correcting you is worse than unnecessary.
But that’s not what TypeScript does. The joke in the meme doesn’t really even make sense.
A better analogy would be you have a basket that’s explicitly labeled “Fruit” and TypeScript complains if you try to put laundry detergent in it because you said it’s supposed to be a basket of fruit.
This meme was clearly made by someone who doesn’t use or understand TypeScript.
Yeah most likely.
It was made by someone who doesn’t understand types, period.
Curious if it’s the same wizard who was explaining that Linus doesn’t understand programming because he has opinions on arm vs Intel architecture. EVERYONE programs in JavaScript anyways and my JavaScript always works on arm. Has Linus lost the plot?
Yeah… What?
Tomatoes are fruits.
Botanically they are. Culinary they are not.
Some languages split the word “fruit” up in those two cases. In Dutch for example, the botanical definition of fruit translates to “vrucht” whereas the culinary definition translates to “fruit”.
So, a tomato is a “vrucht” but it’s not “fruit”
I wish English did this more. There’s way too many words with an overly large number of meanings.
The word “free” meaning both “freedom” and “doesn’t cost money” can be confusing - some languages use “gratis” or an equivalent word for the latter definition. Sure, you can use it as a Latin loan word in English, but that’s not common.
Aren’t they berries, tho?
Would you put a tomato in a fruit salad?
I’d say its more like the gas tank telling you that you aren’t allowed to pour in brake fluid as that could lead to runtime errors.
So much funnier
I’m a bit disappointed that nobody mentioned Rust yet.
Intelligence is knowing that tomato is a fruit, wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad
Charisma is being able to sell a fruit salad with tomatoes in it.
Dexterity is hacking everything into nice looking pieces.
Strength is cutting the cutting board in half while you’re cutting up the tomatoes.
Malovelence is scooping the entire oily thing with your hands and shoving it into the nearest hole.
but ‘ketchup goes on anything!’
-my grampa
Guess it’s not only Typescript that likes to argue with the developer while missing the entire point…
somewhere brodie lee just threw some papers
Evil Uno hits the floor wailing.
I like TypeScript less for its ability to categorize my grocery list and more for its ability to stop anyone from putting cyanide on it.
I hate Typescript for promising me that nobody can put cyanide on the list, but in reality it disallows ME from putting cyanide on the list, but everyone else from the outside is still allowed to do so by using the API which is plain JavaScript again
Honestly, programming is great for teaching you that you are the stupid one. This is still a feature.
The main problem with JavaScript and TypeScript is that there is such a little entrybarrier to it, that way too many people use it without understanding it. The amount of times that we had major issues in production because someone doesn’t understand TypeScript is not countable anymore and our project went live only 4 months ago.
For example, when you use nest.js and want to use a boolean value as a query parameter.
As an example:
You see this code. You don’t see anything wrong with it. The architect looks at it in code review and doesn’t see anything wrong with it. But then you do a
GET https://something.com/valueOfMyBoolean?myBoolean=falseand you get “myBoolean is true” and if you do typeOf(myBoolean) you will see that, despite you declaring it twice, myBoolean is not a boolean but a string. But when running the unit-tests, myBoolean is a boolean.I’ve never used TS, and I’m not exactly sure what nest.js even does, but building a TypeScript project on top of a JavaScript library not designed for it seems like asking for trouble. Is that standard practice?
Yes. As of this writing there are 7,738 type definitions in a central repo maintained by users for plain JavaScript packages.
https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped
Many package owners write type definitions included with their package that is written in JavaScript also.
I instantly noticed this line. Shitcode is so fun.
Typically when creating API interfaces you’d be better off marking the inputs as unknown, and then using something like Zod to validate the types
This is more a condemnation of nest.js than ts. It seems great in theory. I like the architecture and the ability to share models and interfaces between front and backend, but it’s objectively makes everything more complicated. It adds layers of abstraction that should not be necessary and it’s such a niche/unpopular framework for backend systems that you generally have to jump through hoops to do anything moderately complex. Not only do new devs have to learn typescript to use it, they have to learn the nest architecture to know how to do things “the right way” and you still end up in situations like this which looks perfectly valid but isn’t. Typescript was never meant to be used for backend, and trying to make it do so and then complaining about it is like jogging while carrying a gun, shooting yourself in the foot, and blaming the gun.
On the other hand, this can be considered a downside because it locks you into using JS/TS on the front and backends.
Alternatively, if you define your models and interface with an Open API spec, you can write the front and backends in whatever language you want.
Fair enough.
Two questions immediately come to mind. 1) Would you buy the cyanide if it was on the list. 2) Where does one casually buy cyanide? I can’t imagine a case where I’d need some, but it would be handy to know if I ever did.
Just one word: Apples.
I know you used to be able to get it for pest control, but maybe not anymore. You could also make it the old-fashioned way with molten washing soda. It can be used to make Prussian blue, for one thing.
Obviously take all necessary precautions, especially keeping NaCN away from acids.
Tomato: Any
I’ve seen versions of this meme before but I just noticed what he’s wearing. Is that a Mortal Kombat shirt?
I swear to god, sometimes I really don’t know what Typescript really wants from me. It’s like some old god: you know it needs a sacrifice but the god is not telling you exactly what he wants. So you can only try and pray.
Idk, I find it pretty easy to understand
The "return type <5 paragraphs of various word salads> is not compatible with " error messages are anything but easy to understand in my opinion.
Yeah I don’t get why it spits out whole types instead of only differences between them. Like “function expects non-null ‘some.param.in.object’ of type ‘string’ in argument ‘someArgument’, which is missing in passed argument”.
Typescript got a lot easier for me when I stopped even trying to read the error messages
Report -> I’m in this picture and I don’t like it
I don’t like it but God help me if I try to bring up that we shouldn’t use it. I understand it I just don’t like how it slows everything down for in my opinion is not much gain.