- 1 Post
- 33 Comments
Personally unrelatable. I assume this is different in industry code but in both personal and open source projects I’ve never seen or used anything like that.
(And I’m really not against iNaPpRoPriAtE words; I think they’re not something bad to use and I often find it ridiculous how they’re frowned upon in US culture, e.g. movie ratings. But I still want to keep my code neutral / professional.)
>Gets (in my opinion rightfully) mad that someone called their preferred software dumb and says that it works just good for them
>Literally does the same for different software in the next statement
Why are some people like this… No, Gnome, KDE or some other stuff is not obviously bad, otherwise there wouldn’t be tons of people that really do know the different options be using and enjoying it. Just let people use it. You can list advantages and disavantages and why you personally prefer something else, but don’t call it outright bad or insult the users…
But I mean… this also looks like a swiss army knife…
People should use with whatever they feel comfortable with, but I personally don’t see the advantage. I used VSCode once for simple edits of something and it worked, but I couldn’t imagine really using it for a project due to the lack of… everything. The whole support of the JetBrains products from the smart autocompletion, pointing out errors in advance, to improving your code, is insane, and with VSCode, you don’t have that.
I also once had a small project with two people using PyCharm and one VSCode and the differences in the code style were insane. Of course that depends on the person, but it’s just much easier to obey all the style guidelines and write cleaner code with the former one.
I am not a big WhatsApp fan, Signal and Matrix are clearly better from a privacy perspective, e.g. because of the meta data.
And while it’s true what you wrote, it still doesn’t explain my question / counter my argument. WhatsApp is, no matter how much I disliked Facebook / Meta, having better privacy. All messages are end-to-end encrypted and can’t be returned to anyone, while most chats in Telegram aren’t end-to-end encrypted. Telegram often doesn’t give out any chats, but they are capable of doing so and could change their policies at any time.
That logic is bogus. I can’t say the same about WhatsApp because WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted. They can’t give you any message data because they literally don’t own it.
Telegram, on the other hand, does have all the messages. They just refuse to give it to authorities. But they could change that at any point and just start giving the data, while in WhatsApp, that’s not possible by design.
I honestly don’t see a single downside, as long as it’s modularised, maintainable and with clean APIs. And e.g. with a configuration module: The place where I’ve experienced this was a place where bigger parts of the configuration module were classes to build specific custom tree configurations. And if one module would just save what should happen at the change of each entry (and not save that with that entry), it would need to duplicate the whole structure and map it to the entries, which is ugly. It just makes sense to put those strongly related configurational things into one configuration module which provides an easy API (one method for changing and one for retrieving a config element after constructing it and adding other modules).
This is the one thing where my opinion might be highly unpopular, but I don’t see circular dependencies as something bad. If you write really structured modularised code, and just use the APIs of the different modules, it is completely fine to have different modules all depend on each other. At least in object oriented programming, using this approach that’s almost guaranteed to happen.
E.g. imagine a configuration module: Other modules need access to the configuration module to get the different entry values, but the configuration module needs access to other modules to change specific stuff if you change a configuration entry.
Of course you could separate that module into one data part and one action part changing the data and doing stuff in other modules, but if you use many modules like that, this will just become even more complicated and lead to duplicated structures (e.g. a specific data tree plus the exact same tree for actions) which would be cleaner if it was directly in the same module.
Or a different example: An (e.g. discord) bot which is connected in one module, and both messages to the bot can lead to the module getting informations from other modules and actions in other modules can trigger the bot, leading to them depending on each other.
Yeah, in such a situation you should always try to compare the standards, look at the userbases and suddenly there are only very few that actually make sense. If everyone just does this, one standard will eventually crystalise as the one to use (or at least depending on the situation). Character encoding is an interesting example, because nowadays (almost) everything just uses UTF-8, despite there having been many.
I’m 21, but of all my friends (using Linux, Windows and macOS) I think no-one would say that UI is the strength of Windows and weakness of macOS.
To be fair, your comment sounds like you’re (rather) accustomed to Windows. Every operating system works differently, has different settings, etc. and you need to get used to their own way how you do stuff. If you come from Windows to macOS and expect it to be the same and be against every difference, yeah, you’ll think Windows has the better UI.
This is awesome. But one question as I’m not so familiar with emacs: Why do they punish someone when trying to use emacs but not vi? Why do you see emacs as something works?