- 0 Posts
- 24 Comments
Absolutely. Those you suggest there are good examples.
Good enough that, instead of “is/isn’t” programming language, it would be more a “ah, so, how do you define that then?”. Now that I’ve had some sleep, one could argue that I could have been nicer and suggested that approach for HTML as well. After all, it’s just words that mean stuff, and transfer a concept between people, that translate to the same (ish) idea. The moment the latter isn’t the case, it’s no longer very useful for the former.
Most disagreements, I find, are just cases of different understandings. Discussions worth having is when both are correct but different, and both want to figure out why they differ. So, on second thought, I think I was appropriately rude _
Both LaTeX and roff are Turing complete, but they are also DSLs with a somewhat narrow “domain”. Sounds exactly right that these blur the lines between what is/isn’t. You could even argue that claiming one or the other is just one way to express how you understand that difference.
That’s such a weird point to make. Is it because to you, it seems like the line drawn is arbitrary? I cannot imagine any other reason. Certain words just mean certain things.
Markup languages are exactly as much “programming” as you marking a word and hitting “bold”. Which is to say, nothing at all. People are wrong all the time, and I have a very limited amount of fucks to give when it happens.
As for Scratch, it is a programming language. So, why would you think it’s a logical next step for me to say otherwise? Next, you’ll say something remarkably dumb in response. Resist the temptation, and do something more productive.
Not really. If so, you might as well consider the stuff you can use to format a comment here on lemmy, as “programming”. That’s conceptually more similar to HTML as what programming actually is.
quote
some title
Etc.
First thing you mention is such a fun and useful exercise. But as you point out, way overkill. Might even be dangerous to expose it. I got mine to 20kb on top of busybox.
There is something that tickles the right spots when a complete container image significantly smaller than the average js payload in “modern” websites.
Only losing a week on a major change is a good sign. I wish the people who started the project had that same attitude with regards to clarifying requirements. They also did the opposite of designing a flexible solution. No thought to the actual problem, picking a contrived problem to “tackle”. Full on blinders on event driven architecture, split a simple thing into multiple nano-services, yet tightly coupled by sharing the same model which is de/serialized at every step, and then throw in application level filtering on the events… no schemas, no semantic versioning.
waiting for solid requirements
This is exactly the situation. Except that my team consisting of consultants just “started”, instead of trying to scope out the constraints and larger picture. I joined a month or so after.
Six months, and the result so far of their exploration is a fairly uninteresting happy-path use of some technologies, barely related to the task that had unclear requirements. Turns out the work done is unsuited for it. Boggles the mind how much resources are wasted on such things.
Feels extremely unrewarding to have worked, relatively hard, for half a year, and the fruits of my labour is… getting to the point where the actual problems are solved. Which one could have done from day one, if one had started in a team without wrong preconceptions, or, no team, for that matter.
It was the job switch that landed me in that situation. A change from a small company where about 70% was actual productivity, to a large corporation, in a team where there was severe issues with planning and working on the correct problems. So far it’s been 6 months of… well, wondering if I’m missing something, or a bigger picture somewhere, to trying to turn the ship in the right direction. If it’s still like this in another 6 months, I’ll consider a change of scenery.
It’s fascinating how some SPAs come about. Often consultancies who win some bid to implement X features. Since “good user experience” is hard to quantify/specify, it ends up being a horrible end result.
Zalaris is one such that I’m in complete awe of. Set up user flows that are expected to take 30 minutes to complete. Yet, don’t keep track of that state/progress withing your own SPA. Click the wrong tab within that SPA, and state is reset.
It’s, just fascinating.
I get what you’re saying. But, do you get what I’m saying? If someone asks “why is X Y to you”, the answer “because it is Y to me”, doesn’t add much. Now, the OP asked for a reasoning for why it was ethical. You have pretty much said “fuck ethics, I do what I want”. And, as you very much point out, you do not care what anyone thinks. Which… I find weird to point out in a discussion forum. FYI, ethics tries to be a little bit more general than “anything I want is by definition ethical to me”. I’m sure we’re both happy to leave it at that.
You are awfully reductive in your reasoning.
- Most content is corporate generated consumerist garbage anyway so it doesn’t matter
- Our right to access content is more important than a creator’s right to restrict access to it for profit
- It’s information and ideas, and we are entitled to all information simply because I say so
I find none of these statements to be particularly accurate, and as such also your reasoning. I’m sure there are good arguments for it, but the solution and approach you’ve presented is flawed. I had hoped for something more enlightening. Now, I don’t disagree with your ultimate goal or conclusion, it just needs different circumstances than reality currently allows. You either shoot yourself in the foot where creative work dies out, or we manage to create a society where such pursuits are motivated by the art itself and not the gain. But to me, you have not argued that piracy is “ethical”, you just make a point of not really caring about the ethical component of it, because the end goal of you getting access to it without making an effort towards the contribution and the sustainability of creating it, is what matters to you.
I don’t think it can be that black and white. You probably have some kind of framework in mind where that makes sense. Otherwise you would be arguing that the very thing you wish to obtain a copy of, should not be rewarded in a way that allows that work to exist. So, is the framework you have in mind some kind of egalitarian world that unfortunately doesn’t exist?
In the EU, it sort of isn’t.
Takes a long time to write a proper response for all the GDPR stuff. The responses surprisingly don’t change all that much whether or not I do, so I might as well save me the trouble.